# Call for killing of Robins, Starlings & Wagtails



## noushka05

The governments war on wildlife continues unabated, last week it was cormorants, herons & other fish eating birds, today its robins, starlings & pied wagtails - under the guise of - health hazard! Call for killing of birds deemed health hazard splits conservationists | Environment | The Observer

The real reason is way more sinister >> Heres the real reason the Tories are allowing the destruction of robin eggs and nests | Pride's Purge

.


----------



## Jenna500

noushka05 said:


> The governments war on wildlife continues unabated, last week it was cormorants, herons & other fish eating birds, today its robins, starlings & pied wagtails - under the guise of - health hazard! Call for killing of birds deemed health hazard splits conservationists | Environment | The Observer
> 
> The real reason is way more sinister >> Heres the real reason the Tories are allowing the destruction of robin eggs and nests | Pride's Purge
> 
> .


Er, what health hazard? Jeez what horse sh!t will this government come up with next?


----------



## Lurcherlad

If this is true, it's an outrage!


----------



## jill3

Thanks for sharing this.
I have shared it on my face book so people can read what the Tories are getting up to before they decide to vote.

I think it's absolutely evil what they want to do and it should be stopped.

All birds and creatures are special. To have a Robin visit my garden every day gives me great pleasure.

If it was up to these bunch of idiots we would have no countryside or wildlife left in England:cursing:


----------



## noushka05

Lurcherlad said:


> If this is true, it's an outrage!


Chris Packham has just tweeted for people to read this George Monbiot piece about Andrew Sells LL Why Andrew Sells is the wrong choice for Natural England | George Monbiot | Environment | theguardian.com

Another of his tweets on the subject > Chris Packham; 
And here's another case http://tinyurl.com/mea7gp4 - more credibility loss for NE after their shame over the Badger cull and Buzzard licences

.


----------



## Calvine

Lord, why don't we just kill everything that moves and have done with it?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

So house sparrows aren't mentioned? After all, they *should* be the most numerous finch species? Or could that be because they are in decline, so they are protected. 

Honestly, talk about taking 3 and 3 and making 26. The article mentions if a nest is a health hazard, ie built over a flue or similar. But no, let's blow it all out of proportion and accuse *a government* of having it in for particular bird species. Laughable.


----------



## noushka05

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So house sparrows aren't mentioned? After all, they *should* be the most numerous finch species? Or could that be because they are in decline, so they are protected.
> 
> Honestly, talk about taking 3 and 3 and making 26. The article mentions if a nest is a health hazard, ie built over a flue or similar. But no, let's blow it all out of proportion and accuse *a government* of having it in for particular bird species. Laughable.


Well I knew it wouldn't bother you SL.

(I have no idea what point you're trying to make about house sparrows)

*General licences allow the public to take action against birds without having to apply for a specific licence. As a result, there is no requirement to record the number of birds killed or nests destroyed. "The number of nesting robins, starlings and pied wagtails prompting legitimate health and safety concerns in any year is very, very small, and we shall be responding to Natural England that it would be disproportionate to change the current licensing system, which should easily cope with genuine problems," said Robin Wynde of the RSPB.

Wynde said the placing of the starling under a general licence was a particular worry, as this could encourage people to take down their nests at a time when their numbers were falling. "A lot of people quite like starlings, but some people find them a bit of a nuisance because they nest in their roofs," Wynde said.*


----------



## korrok

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So house sparrows aren't mentioned? After all, they *should* be the most numerous finch species? Or could that be because they are in decline, so they are protected.
> 
> Honestly, talk about taking 3 and 3 and making 26. The article mentions if a nest is a health hazard, ie built over a flue or similar. But no, let's blow it all out of proportion and accuse *a government* of having it in for particular bird species. Laughable.


Not sure how you take away "the government has it in for a particular bird species". Clearly you did not read the links provided and had already made up your own mind?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

korrok said:


> Not sure how you take away "the government has it in for a particular bird species". Clearly you did not read the links provided and had already made up your own mind?


I read both links thank you.

So let's look at it rationally, rather than with the ulterior motives of animal rights pushed to the fore yet again. The government has basically okayed it, for certain species of birds, to have nests removed where they are a problem, because these species are not threatened, and the removal of these nests poses no long term risk to the welfare of the species involved.

However, the thread title is so much more sensationalist, I mean, come on, the tories want all robins dead, a much better headline.

And oh, birds that have nests removed instantly drop dead and never produce any more offspring, or simply find another nesting space where they can rear their young.

*sigh*


----------



## noushka05

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I read both links thank you.
> 
> So let's look at it rationally, rather than with the ulterior motives of animal rights pushed to the fore yet again. The government has basically okayed it, for certain species of birds, to have nests removed where they are a problem, because these species are not threatened, and the removal of these nests poses no long term risk to the welfare of the species involved.
> 
> However, the thread title is so much more sensationalist, I mean, come on, the tories want all robins dead, a much better headline.
> 
> And oh, birds that have nests removed instantly drop dead and never produce any more offspring, or simply find another nesting space where they can rear their young.


The RSPB are a conservation organisation they don't have an Animal rights agenda lol

Andrew Sells the new chairman of Natural England - Do you genuinely believe this man is the right man for the job? Why Andrew Sells is the wrong choice for Natural England | George Monbiot | Environment | theguardian.com

Starlings happen to be in steep decline if you'd bother to read the article as are other species this now unfit for purpose Natural England has placed on a general license!:cursing:

Our wildlife has never been in so much peril, we should be doing everything possible to preserve & protect it not get rid of it when it gets in our way!

I'll leave you with this comment because this is JUST how I feel!

_Jesus.

Utter madness.

The arrogance of this is unsurpassed.

We should be living with nature - not treating it as a commodity which, when it doesn't suit us, we destroy. Those species that remain which we don't already threaten with extinction, whose habitats we have not already destroyed, or poisoned, whose mating cycle we haven't already wrecked with our 24 hour culture - should be protected by us.

Who are these machine-like people who devise these hideous plans? These birds of England belong to me and you - not to officialdom. These are our own birds, breathing the same air as I do, as you do. Leave them alone, for god's sake. _

*sigh*
,


----------



## rona

Such disrespect for the creatures we share our country with


----------



## noushka05

Petition to stop the destruction, it already well on the way to 60,000 signatures. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/877/675/729/dont-let-them-kill-the-birds-and-destroy-their-eggs/

Shocking stuff! and most certainly NOT sensationalist AR nonsense. >

The Natural England consultation  which ends today  is set to sweep away protections for robins, starlings and others. Wild birds will be at the mercy of wherever developers want to put houses," (1)

said Andrew Cooper, environment spokesperson for the Green Party of England and Wales, and lead Green candidate for Yorkshire and the Humber in Thursdays Euro elections.

The Natural England proposals (PDF) mean that nests and eggs of bird species such as robins and starlings could be allowed to be destroyed without the granting of special licences as at present. (2) This means, basically, that anyone would be allowed to destroy such nests or eggs.

Why would Britain suddenly seek to sweep away protections for wild birds that so many of us know and love?" he asked.

Theres a simple answer. The chair for Natural England is Andrew Sells. Hes a venture capitalist, hes given over £100,000 to the Conservative Party, and hes also a house-builder.

Natural England claims that these birds can present a public health and safety hazard while giving no evidence of what exactly the public health and safety hazards of robins and starlings eggs are. There are no known health issues.

These proposals make it clear that Conservatives are prepared to roll back environmental protections, even to sacrifice iconic species for their own short-term gain, Andrew Cooper concluded.

Andrew Sells is a founder of Linden Homes, which specialises in developing brownfield sites for residential housing.

-------------------------------------------

All wild birds, their nests and young are protected throughout England and Wales by the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended):

If nests, whether completed or in the process of being built, are found on site, any works with the potential to damage or destroy the nest, eggs or young birds, must stop until the birds have completed breeding.

Birds may nest on machinery or scaffolding and other temporary site structures. If this happens the equipment cannot be used until the birds have finished nesting and such areas may need to be sealed off to prevent disturbance.

Breaking the law can lead to fines of up to £5000 per offence and potential prison sentences of up to six months. Vehicles implicated in an offence can be compounded and both the company, and/or the individual(s) concerned, can be held liable.

Of bird&#039;s nests and govt consultations | The Wildlife Trusts

*Today is the closing date for a Natural England consultation on proposed changes to the General and Class licences under wildlife legislation in England. These licences allow action to be taken against protected species, if there is enough reason to do so. *

The proposed change would make it lawful for people to remove and destroy the nests and eggs of these species  robin, pied wagtail and starling - under grounds of health and safety, without any need to apply for a licence, and without any monitoring of such activity - even though the starling is red-listed for conservation concern due to recent declines in numbers.

The number of instances where the nests of these birds represent a legitimate risk to public health and safety (Natural England states nests in ventilation flues, for example) is very small  in 2012, one licence was issued for pied wagtail, 5 for robin and 4 for starling*. On this basis the proposed changes to the legislation do not in any way seem commensurate to the need. Laws, such as those around the disturbance of bird's nests and eggs, are fundamental to how we protect nature in this country. Legislation, such as the Wild Birds Protection Act 1954 and Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, has made it a crime to intentionally remove or damage the eggs of wild birds and any steps to weaken this should be of great concern. The current licensing system should be able to cope with the very small number of cases where there is a legitimate health & safety concern without weakening important protection for wildlife


----------



## JANICE199

*signed the petition. I'm sick to death of all this killing. Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't just last year or the year before that the rspb was saying the numbers of starling was on the decline?*


----------



## noushka05

JANICE199 said:


> *signed the petition. I'm sick to death of all this killing. Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't just last year or the year before that the rspb was saying the numbers of starling was on the decline?*


That's right, the starling population is in free fall. Defra & Natural England no longer protect wildlife they are now just tools to serve govt donors & lobby groups, completely corrupted. Thank you so much for signing Janice.


----------



## ForestWomble

:incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato:

Edited to add I have signed the petition. Nothing pleases me more then to see birds in my garden and hear them sing all day. How awful it would be to loose our birds


----------



## Spellweaver

JANICE199 said:


> *signed the petition. I'm sick to death of all this killing. Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't just last year or the year before that the rspb was saying the numbers of starling was on the decline?*


Yes - spot on Jan. Trouble is, there are some people on here who will ignore that fact because, to them, the only value a bird has is that it can be shot for "sport" and "fun". 

What this government is doing to our wildlife is atrocious, and no true animal lover would ever support them in their actions, or try to pretend their actions were fine.

I've signed the petition as well - the more signatures it gets, the more chance we have of forcing this government to stop the wholesale slaughter of our wildlife.


----------



## rona

JANICE199 said:


> *signed the petition. I'm sick to death of all this killing. Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't just last year or the year before that the rspb was saying the numbers of starling was on the decline?*


The Starlings in my area have only just the last couple of years been showing signs of recovery. Last winter was the first time for decades that I'd heard the chattering of a starling roost


----------



## Cleo38

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I read both links thank you.
> 
> So let's look at it rationally, rather than with the ulterior motives of animal rights pushed to the fore yet again. The government has basically okayed it, for certain species of birds, to have nests removed where they are a problem, because these species are not threatened, and the removal of these nests poses no long term risk to the welfare of the species involved.
> 
> However, the thread title is so much more sensationalist, I mean, come on, the tories want all robins dead, a much better headline.
> 
> And oh, birds that have nests removed instantly drop dead and never produce any more offspring, or simply find another nesting space where they can rear their young.
> 
> *sigh*


That's how I read it .... maybe I'm missing something 

As far as removing nests, I agree that brids will rebuild in another location. working in the construction industry our work at site can be severaly impacted (due to delays which incur costs) because a bird has started to nest or, in some cases an ecologist has heard a mating call from a rare bird (as happened a few months ago).

Delays becuase of this cause big costs for some projects & whilst I completely agree that we should always look to protect our wildlife, at times, disturbing them is not always avoidable.


----------



## rona

Cleo38 said:


> That's how I read it .... maybe I'm missing something
> 
> As far as removing nests, I agree that brids will rebuild in another location. working in the construction industry our work at site can be severaly impacted (due to delays which incur costs) because a bird has started to nest or, in some cases an ecologist has heard a mating call from a rare bird (as happened a few months ago).
> 
> Delays becuase of this cause big costs for some projects & whilst I completely agree that we should always look to protect our wildlife, at times, disturbing them is not always avoidable.


Anything that holds up construction around here is a bonus.

We have huge swaths of countryside disappearing under houses  

The newest going on a piece of land where the local field fares spend their winter


----------



## noushka05

Animallover26 said:


> :incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato::incazzato:
> 
> Edited to add I have signed the petition. Nothing pleases me more then to see birds in my garden and hear them sing all day. How awful it would be to loose our birds


I know just how you feel. They have recently placed cormorants & other fish eaters on General Licence to placate the fishing lobby, the shoot lobby & pigeon fanciers are knocking on NE's door so I suspect our buzzards, sparrowhawkes & peregrine will be next in line.

Thank you so much for signing the petition.



Cleo38 said:


> That's how I read it .... maybe I'm missing something
> 
> As far as removing nests, I agree that brids will rebuild in another location. working in the construction industry our work at site can be severaly impacted (due to delays which incur costs) because a bird has started to nest or, in some cases an ecologist has heard a mating call from a rare bird (as happened a few months ago).
> 
> Delays becuase of this cause big costs for some projects & whilst I completely agree that we should always look to protect our wildlife, at times, disturbing them is not always avoidable.


I think your post highlights perfectly why people are so concerned about this Cleo. NE claim placing them general licence will only affect a (their words); " _very small no of nests posing threat of infection/accident eg in school air vents_". 'Holding up the job' isnt suppose to be covered its not a 'health hazard'. But, NE know full well, with protections removed, no monitoring the system will be openly abused...

_The proposed change would make it lawful for people to remove and destroy the nests and eggs of these species  robin, pied wagtail and starling - under grounds of health and safety, without any need to apply for a licence, and without any monitoring of such activity - even though the starling is red-listed for conservation concern due to recent declines in numbers._

_The number of instances where the nests of these birds represent a legitimate risk to public health and safety (Natural England states nests in ventilation flues, for example) is very small  in 2012, one licence was issued for pied wagtail, 5 for robin and 4 for starling*. On this basis the proposed changes to the legislation do not in any way seem commensurate to the need. Laws, such as those around the disturbance of bird's nests and eggs, are fundamental to how we protect nature in this country. Legislation, such as the Wild Birds Protection Act 1954 and Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, has made it a crime to intentionally remove or damage the eggs of wild birds and any steps to weaken this should be of great concern. The current licensing system should be able to cope with the very small number of cases where there is a legitimate health & safety concern without weakening important protection for wildlife _



Spellweaver said:


> Yes - spot on Jan. Trouble is, there are some people on here who will ignore that fact because, to them, the only value a bird has is that it can be shot for "sport" and "fun".
> 
> What this government is doing to our wildlife is atrocious, and no true animal lover would ever support them in their actions, or try to pretend their actions were fine.
> 
> I've signed the petition as well - the more signatures it gets, the more chance we have of forcing this government to stop the wholesale slaughter of our wildlife.


Absolutely! & thank you for signing the petition x


----------



## ForestWomble

noushka05 said:


> I know just how you feel. They have recently placed cormorants & other fish eaters on General Licence to placate the fishing lobby, the shoot lobby & pigeon fanciers are knocking on NE's door so I suspect our buzzards, sparrowhawkes & peregrine will be next in line.
> 
> Thank you so much for signing the petition.


Oh no  Not our birds of prey too  I have a soft spot for all birds but birds of prey are in the top 5 for me. I have a family of blue tits nesting in the garden and I see a falcon regularly - I've already said 'take care of yourselves' to all the birds I've seen this morning.  (Crazy eh?)

I hope this petition can end the killing of our birds.


----------



## Cleo38

noushka05 said:


> I know just how you feel. They have recently placed cormorants & other fish eaters on General Licence to placate the fishing lobby, the shoot lobby & pigeon fanciers are knocking on NE's door so I suspect our buzzards, sparrowhawkes & peregrine will be next in line.
> 
> Thank you so much for signing the petition.
> 
> I think your post highlights perfectly why people are so concerned about this Cleo. NE claim placing them general licence will only affect a (their words); " _very small no of nests posing threat of infection/accident eg in school air vents_". *'Holding up the job' isnt suppose to be covered* its not a 'health hazard'. But, NE know full well, with protections removed, no monitoring the system will be openly abused...
> 
> x


Actually it can be in the sites I work on as we are dealing with sewage. At certain sites that are at risk of flooding or over topping (as happens) then the operatives who have to maintain the works have to wade through raw, untreated sewage which can be a risk to their health despite wearing appropriate PPE.

It is also a risk to the local environment if we are not meeting discharge consents so at times, maintenace work needs to commence asap

We actually do alot of work to ensure local wildlife is not disturbed or harmed, you would be surprised the lengths people go to, not always because the law states this but because thety have genuine conscerns for the animals but sometyimes the extent we do have to go to seems ludicrous when the animal involved is not endangered or will be harmed (as in simply removing a half built nest)


----------



## rona

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wml-gl05_tcm6-24150.pdf

Only two gulls on this years I think.

Where are the Cormorants?


----------



## rona

Natural England - Setting the record straight over wildlife licensing myths

Natural England is allowing the destruction of robins nests to help developers

This is not true. The proposal in no way changes the narrow set of circumstances in which it is legal to take action. The removal of nests for development purposes is not a licensable activity under the Wildlife & Countryside Act. Proposal 2 on the consultation is quite clear that General Licences permit the destruction of pied wagtail, robin and starling nests where the location of those nests represents a potential health and safety hazard ONLY. This could be where the birds are nesting in areas of hospitals or food-handling premises - such as in ventilation flues - which have the potential to spread infection. It could also be where nesting in gas pipework or a railway signal box could lead to a serious accident. The proposed licence change would allow essential action to be taken more quickly. The destruction of a nest outside the circumstances proposed would remain illegal under the Act.

Natural England issue licences to 'cull' cormorants

This is not true. Cormorants are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Whilst Natural England issue licences to allow the killing of a limited number of cormorants to protect fisheries, these are only issued to aid or enhance other non lethal measures of reducing predation by cormorants. 'Culling' implies an active attempt to significantly reduce the overall population, which is not done. The licences which are issued may slightly reduce the numbers of cormorants in a local area, but the overall number of cormorants killed under licence is closely monitored to ensure the overall conservation status of the population is maintained.


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> The Starlings in my area have only just the last couple of years been showing signs of recovery. Last winter was the first time for decades that I'd heard the chattering of a starling roost


*I know hubby and i moan because we have more starlings and jackdaws than anything else in our garden. But the pleasure we get watching, especially now they have babies to feed, is well worth the cost in food.*


----------



## suewhite

Gosh!!this lot will only be satisfied when they have wiped out all our wildlife its there world as much as ours.:mad2:


----------



## Phoenix24

What really annoys me is that for the sake of a few weeks where a nest might be active, they are potentially going to destroy that breeding pairs' perhaps only attempt that season. Starlings only have a single nesting attempt per season, and if that nest fails they generally don't have a second attempt (it can happen, but if its too late in the season for them then generally no, they won't).

Human beings are so good at creating problems, and then going 'oh no, what do we do about it' when its already too late. What they should be doing in this case is prevention - making sure that air vents are properly covered with grills so that birds cannot nest inside them, and perhaps providing alternative nesting sites (such as nest boxes, or vegetation) as clearly natural sites are in serious shortage - thanks to humans relentless destruction of habitats.

For the sake of a few weeks though... oh come on... if humans are so clever why can't they think of an alternative temporary measure that doesn't involve the destruction of an active nest, which will only be active for 6 weeks or so???

Grrr. And the bodies that are supposed to be protecting wildlife are turning into spineless, faceless, government controlled bureaucrats.


----------



## Phoenix24

I should also add, I have seen cases where birds nesting on a roof that then needed repairs carried on regardless of the fact the workmen moved the nest onto the scaffolding during their work.

This season one of my nest boxes was falling apart with a nest half built in it. I replaced the box and moved the nest into the new one - and the birds continued on using the nest.

My point being, if they find a nest somewhere inappropriate, they could try putting up a temporary nest box of some sort right next to the old nest site, and move the nest into it. Its surprising how strong the instinct is in birds to carry on with the nest, especially once eggs have started to be laid within it, and more so when they hatch.


----------



## Magnus

rona said:


> Natural England - Setting the record straight over wildlife licensing myths
> 
> Natural England is allowing the destruction of robins nests to help developers
> 
> This is not true. The proposal in no way changes the narrow set of circumstances in which it is legal to take action. The removal of nests for development purposes is not a licensable activity under the Wildlife & Countryside Act. Proposal 2 on the consultation is quite clear that General Licences permit the destruction of pied wagtail, robin and starling nests where the location of those nests represents a potential health and safety hazard ONLY. This could be where the birds are nesting in areas of hospitals or food-handling premises - such as in ventilation flues - which have the potential to spread infection. It could also be where nesting in gas pipework or a railway signal box could lead to a serious accident. The proposed licence change would allow essential action to be taken more quickly. The destruction of a nest outside the circumstances proposed would remain illegal under the Act.
> 
> Natural England issue licences to 'cull' cormorants
> 
> This is not true. Cormorants are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Whilst Natural England issue licences to allow the killing of a limited number of cormorants to protect fisheries, these are only issued to aid or enhance other non lethal measures of reducing predation by cormorants. 'Culling' implies an active attempt to significantly reduce the overall population, which is not done. The licences which are issued may slightly reduce the numbers of cormorants in a local area, but the overall number of cormorants killed under licence is closely monitored to ensure the overall conservation status of the population is maintained.


Rona, it's no use stating the facts when people are set on deliberately misinterpreting something so they can get in a tizz over it.


----------



## Cleo38

Phoenix24 said:


> What really annoys me is that for the sake of a few weeks where a nest might be active, they are potentially going to destroy that breeding pairs' perhaps only attempt that season. Starlings only have a single nesting attempt per season, and if that nest fails they generally don't have a second attempt (it can happen, but if its too late in the season for them then generally no, they won't).
> 
> Human beings are so good at creating problems, and then going 'oh no, what do we do about it' when its already too late. What they should be doing in this case is prevention - making sure that air vents are properly covered with grills so that birds cannot nest inside them, and perhaps providing alternative nesting sites (such as nest boxes, or vegetation) as clearly natural sites are in serious shortage - thanks to humans relentless destruction of habitats.
> 
> For the sake of a few weeks though... oh come on... if humans are so clever why can't they think of an alternative temporary measure that doesn't involve the destruction of an active nest, which will only be active for 6 weeks or so???
> 
> Grrr. And the bodies that are supposed to be protecting wildlife are turning into spineless, faceless, government controlled bureaucrats.


For the sake of a few weeks delays on the sites I work on has a big impact on certain schemes. Some of the deadlines we have to met are set by European guidelines so delaying starting work can have serious consequences which can result in alot of money being wasted - this will not only affect the company but it's customers who will (eventually) take on these costs.

It is usually about preventing such instances (nesting birds for example) by carrying out maintenance work but again because of cuts to budgets (in my industry) this isn't always possible & some sites become neglected.

Sometimes you need to start at a certain period of the year, one example is a scheme I am working on that requires refurbishing of reed beds. This had to start at a certain time in the year to ensure the reeds grew, if we started work later then we would have missed the growing period & the site would have failed, therefore incurring fines, putting operatives at risk & possible pollution incidents .... all because of a couple of bird nests that were not even occupied.

Alot of the sites I work on do create nest boxes for birds, we do not work within certain distances of nesting birds or other wildlife (especially badgers), at some sites we have to put up barriers so as not to disturb the ground nesting birds, we do not carry out heavy works at certain times of the year in certain areas so as not to disturb the local wildlife, we even had to discuss a new route getting a crane on to site so as not to disturb a buzzard who liked to perch on a certain tree but ... at times when h&s is important then I do think removing these birds is acceptable.


----------



## Goblin

If it's a choice between my family suffering carbon monoxide poisoning or getting rid of a nest I know which comes as a priority. How many people know about needing a license in the first place?

Yet more scaremongering.


----------



## JANICE199

Goblin said:


> If it's a choice between my family suffering carbon monoxide poisoning or getting rid of a nest I know which comes as a priority. How many people know about needing a license in the first place?
> 
> Yet more scaremongering.


*Truth is not scaremongering imo. People have the right to know the facts. I for one do not won't to live in cloud cuckoo land.*


----------



## Goblin

JANICE199 said:


> *Truth is not scaremongering imo. People have the right to know the facts. I for one do not won't to live in cloud cuckoo land.*


Misleading is scaremongering.

There's a vast difference between what is proposed and even the title of this thread.


----------



## JANICE199

Goblin said:


> Misleading is scaremongering.
> 
> There's a vast difference between what is proposed and even the title of this thread.


*But if we are not made aware of what is proposed, how do we protest before it's too late?*


----------



## Spellweaver

Magnus said:


> Rona, it's no use stating the facts when people are set on deliberately misinterpreting something so they can get in a tizz over it.


In this world there have always been people who swallow hook, line and sinker what those in authority want them to believe. However, there have also always been people who refuse to be lied to, who question authority's dictats, and who fight against injustice and cruelty when they see it.

Thank goodness for those people. I dread to think what this world would be like without them, if everyone through the centuries had tugged their forelocks and allowed successive governments all over the world to do exactly what they please without question. Most of the rights we have today have been fought for by such people.

So you go right on sneering at those people who refuse to be lied to, who search for the truth, who fight against what they believe is wrong. Your sneering won't alter what they do - and you will still be able to enjoy the better world they fight for even though your contribution was nothing more than a snigger.


----------



## Cleo38

Goblin said:


> Misleading is scaremongering.
> 
> There's a vast difference between what is proposed and even the title of this thread.


That's why I thought I was missing something when I read the proposal.

I really don't understand how his can be argued given the reasons for allowing these changes. For operatives on sites I work at, it would be (& can be), demoralising to people to be told that a birds nest (even one that is unfinished) is more important than their H&S


----------



## noushka05

Animallover26 said:


> Oh no  Not our birds of prey too  I have a soft spot for all birds but birds of prey are in the top 5 for me. I have a family of blue tits nesting in the garden and I see a falcon regularly - I've already said 'take care of yourselves' to all the birds I've seen this morning.  (Crazy eh?)
> 
> I hope this petition can end the killing of our birds.


Oh they already have issued licences to destroy buzzards. The rspb only found out using a freedom of information request. Sly!

I love BOP's too & I love blue tits - basically everything with feathers, & no youre not crazy at all saying that



Cleo38 said:


> Actually it can be in the sites I work on as we are dealing with sewage. At certain sites that are at risk of flooding or over topping (as happens) then the operatives who have to maintain the works have to wade through raw, untreated sewage which can be a risk to their health despite wearing appropriate PPE.
> 
> It is also a risk to the local environment if we are not meeting discharge consents so at times, maintenace work needs to commence asap
> 
> We actually do alot of work to ensure local wildlife is not disturbed or harmed, you would be surprised the lengths people go to, not always because the law states this but because thety have genuine conscerns for the animals but sometyimes the extent we do have to go to seems ludicrous when the animal involved is not endangered or will be harmed (as in simply removing a half built nest)


Im sure in some instances they can be a health hazard and licences already cover these rare cases. This legislation is all about saving developers time & money, it has nothing to do with 'health hazard'. NE have removed other legislation to make it easier to build on our greenbelt/brownfield land. Take a look at biodiversity offsetting, another of their shocking policies, now even our ancient woodland & other irreplaceable habitats are at grave risk of development.
Biodiversity offsetting proposals 'a licence to trash nature' | Environment | theguardian.com

_Developers will be allowed to destroy wildlife and woodlands if they create new habitats elsewhere, under government plans published by the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, on Thursday.

Ministers hope the proposals, called biodiversity offsetting, will make it easier for new housing and commercial schemes to go ahead, boosting the economy. But environment groups dubbed the plans a "licence to trash nature".
_

and lets not forget NE are also responsible for the licencing of the shambolic badger cull!

This is Natural Englands remit> *Securing a healthy natural environment for people to enjoy, where wildlife is protected and England's landscapes are safeguarded for future generations*

Andrew Sells is chair of Natural England & a property developer not an ecologist, nature is seen as an obstacle to him. Natural England is no longer fit for purpose.



rona said:


> Natural England - Setting the record straight over wildlife licensing myths
> 
> Natural England is allowing the destruction of robins' nests to help developers
> 
> This is not true. The proposal in no way changes the narrow set of circumstances in which it is legal to take action. The removal of nests for development purposes is not a licensable activity under the Wildlife & Countryside Act. Proposal 2 on the consultation is quite clear that General Licences permit the destruction of pied wagtail, robin and starling nests where the location of those nests represents a potential health and safety hazard ONLY. This could be where the birds are nesting in areas of hospitals or food-handling premises - such as in ventilation flues - which have the potential to spread infection. It could also be where nesting in gas pipework or a railway signal box could lead to a serious accident. The proposed licence change would allow essential action to be taken more quickly. The destruction of a nest outside the circumstances proposed would remain illegal under the Act.
> 
> Yes I know what they 'say'
> 
> Natural England issue licences to 'cull' cormorants
> 
> This is not true. Cormorants are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Whilst Natural England issue licences to allow the killing of a limited number of cormorants to protect fisheries, these are only issued to aid or enhance other non lethal measures of reducing predation by cormorants. 'Culling' implies an active attempt to significantly reduce the overall population, which is not done. The licences which are issued may slightly reduce the numbers of cormorants in a local area, but the overall number of cormorants killed under licence is closely monitored to ensure the overall conservation status of the population is maintained.


In 2010 1779 cormorants were shot under licence. The Angling Trust not satisfied have lobbied to make killing them easier. This set who have lobbied for weakening of the existing licensing are the very ones doing the monitoring.

Cormorant victory: Angling Trust wins battle to help fishery owners protect their stocks | Coarse Fishing News | Angling Times | Gofishing UK

_ The new Cormorant and Goosander Management Plan will include the funding of three fisheries management advisors (FMAs), to be employed by the Angling Trust from April 2014. They will help angling clubs and fishery owners reduce predation, co-ordinate applications for licences and gather evidence about the number of birds in each catchment area. This evidence will then be used to review the existing national limit on the number of cormorants that can be shot each year. _



Magnus said:


> Rona, it's no use stating the facts when people are set on deliberately misinterpreting something so they can get in a tizz over it.


Facts? you cant have been following the badger cull then? Natural England don't do facts, the department is totally corrupt.



Goblin said:


> If it's a choice between my family suffering carbon monoxide poisoning or getting rid of a nest I know which comes as a priority. How many people know about needing a license in the first place?
> 
> Yet more scaremongering.


Scaremongering? I think using 'health hazard' as an excuse to weaken protection, when there are only a handful of incidents, is what you call scaremongering! _(Natural England states nests in ventilation flues, for example) is very small - in 2012, one licence was issued for pied wagtail, 5 for robin and 4 for starling. _ Ten incidents

Now lets see how concerned this lot really are about public health >>

_Number of cattle culled for TB/yr = 29,000 > Defra springs into action & embarks on badger cull. No of Britons dying/yr from air pollution = 29,000. Defra inert_

You seriously think they care about protecting us plebs?. lol Destroying nature is their priority.



JANICE199 said:


> *But if we are not made aware of what is proposed, how do we protest before it's too late?*


Precisely Janice.


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> Scaremongering? I think using 'health hazard' as an excuse to weaken protection, when there are only a handful of incidents, is what you call scaremongering! _(Natural England states nests in ventilation flues, for example) is very small - in 2012, one licence was issued for pied wagtail, 5 for robin and 4 for starling. _ Ten incidents


How many people remove nests who didn't have a license as let's face it, Joe Public will remove a nest, opening themselves up for prosecution without even knowing a license is needed.

Badger cull... badger cull... badger cull... Yes, it's definitely wrong but not an excuse to jump on any potential change labelling it wrong and retain any credibility.


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> How many people remove nests who didn't have a license as let's face it, Joe Public will remove a nest, opening themselves up for prosecution without even knowing a license is needed.
> 
> Badger cull... badger cull... badger cull... Yes, it's definitely wrong but not an excuse to jump on any potential change labelling it wrong and retain any credibility.


No idea, how many people do remove nests without a license? - what I do know is property developers know you need to apply for a license & know its a £5,000 fine if they tamper with a nest without one. So the protection of birds & their nests has been excellent piece of legisltion. Developers, NFU, lobby groups must be thrilled with this 'new' NE now its serving their interests, rather than our natural heritage.

lol You don't know me at all, badger cull or no, I would feel EXACTLY the same about this.

/


----------



## Magnus

Spellweaver said:


> In this world there have always been people who swallow hook, line and sinker what those in authority want them to believe. However, there have also always been people who refuse to be lied to, who question authority's dictats, and who fight against injustice and cruelty when they see it.
> 
> Thank goodness for those people. I dread to think what this world would be like without them, if everyone through the centuries had tugged their forelocks and allowed successive governments all over the world to do exactly what they please without question. Most of the rights we have today have been fought for by such people.
> 
> So you go right on sneering at those people who refuse to be lied to, who search for the truth, who fight against what they believe is wrong. Your sneering won't alter what they do - and you will still be able to enjoy the better world they fight for even though your contribution was nothing more than a snigger.


I'd love to sit and debate this complete load of tosh but I've booked myself on a Robin shoot with Quentin, Tarquin and Penelope.


----------



## noushka05

Magnus said:


> I'd love to sit and debate this complete load of tosh but I've booked myself on a Robin shoot with Quentin, Tarquin and Penelope.


You'd fit well in Natural England, you seem to have the same attitude to wildlife as they do. If you dont have anything constructive to add to the thread, I suggest you stop trolling it & just don't look at it anymore.:thumbup1:

,


----------



## rona

Magnus said:


> I'd love to sit and debate this complete load of tosh but I've booked myself on a Robin shoot with Quentin, Tarquin and Penelope.


Liked not necessarily for the point it made but because it gave me a laugh


----------



## Spellweaver

Magnus said:


> I'd love to sit and debate this complete load of tosh but I've booked myself on a Robin shoot with Quentin, Tarquin and Penelope.


Translation: 
I know you're right Spellweaver but I daren't admit it because I have no argument against it and I don't want to lose face. So I'm going to type a funny answer instead to try to divert people from the fact that I originally typed a load of ******** about something of which I knew nothing.


----------



## Magnus

On the contrary, I know you're wrong and more to the point you know you're wrong. People get their kicks by coming on here and deliberately sensationalising a completely sensible change in a minor piece of legislation which allows some birds nests to be moved if and when health & safety issues require it. 
The thread is called "Call for killing of Robins, Starlings and Wagtails" when it is nothing of the sort, to try and make it sound like they're going to be hunted FFS. The saddest part of the whole episode is the way that people on here just accept such a ludicrous notion and then add to it by suggesting it's all part of a huge conspiracy (presumably by the Tories) to kill all wildlife.


----------



## rona

Magnus said:


> On the contrary, I know you're wrong and more to the point you know you're wrong. You get your kicks by coming on here and deliberately sensationalising a completely sensible change in a minor piece of legislation which allows some birds nests to be moved if and when health & safety issues require it.
> You have called the thread "Call for killing of Robins, Starlings and Wagtails" when it is nothing of the sort, to try and make it sound like they're going to be hunted FFS. The saddest part of the whole episode is the way that people on here just accept such a ludicrous notion and then add to it by suggesting it's all part of a huge conspiracy (presumably by the Tories) to kill all wildlife.
> Dear me, if it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.
> Listen, if you want to get off by scaremongering and making up conspiracies then fill your boots but don't expect anyone outside of your little gang of hangers on to swallow such utter sh!te.


I'm like you I find this over reaction rather peculiar. On the other hand, it's the people with passion that usually get things done.
Yes I try and find out the truth of a matter or give a differing opinion, but I do admire those that have passion and get off their arses and try to do something.
I don't know if that applies to those on here or if they are just keyboard warriors, but we really do need the people who are passionate enough to act, even if they are misguided sometimes


----------



## noushka05

Magnus said:


> On the contrary, I know you're wrong and more to the point you know you're wrong. You get your kicks by coming on here and deliberately sensationalising a completely sensible change in a minor piece of legislation which allows some birds nests to be moved if and when health & safety issues require it.
> You have called the thread "Call for killing of Robins, Starlings and Wagtails" when it is nothing of the sort, to try and make it sound like they're going to be hunted FFS. The saddest part of the whole episode is the way that people on here just accept such a ludicrous notion and then add to it by suggesting it's all part of a huge conspiracy (presumably by the Tories) to kill all wildlife.
> *Dear me, if it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.
> Listen, if you want to get off by scaremongering and making up conspiracies then fill your boots but don't expect anyone outside of your little gang of hangers on to swallow such utter sh!te*.


The title of the thread mirrors the title of news article I linked to. Yes they do it to grab attention, but destroying eggs & quite possibly chicks is killing them as far as i'm concerned, people can then read the article and make their own mind up.

Removing protection from their nests & eggs & placing them on a general licence, is downgrading them to 'pest' status however you try to spin this, so most certainly not 'a sensible change in a minor piece of legislation'.

People don't even need to be that informed to see that this government is unravelling hard fought environmental protection policies right across the board. This is just another policy, in a long list of policies, showing their utter contempt for nature, but with a Countryside Alliance govt what else can we expect!

Anyway, why don't you go and sit down & take a few deep breaths- you sound as if you're about to blow a fuse.

.


----------



## Magnus

I'm completely calm thanks, probably because I don't believe that this change in legislation is a "call to kill" but then I'm not writing headlines for the Guardian or trying to stir up unnecessary strife on here.

Perhaps I should start a thread called "_Government changes rules to protect assistance dogs"._

Oh hang on a minute, that's true so that's no good.

You see this whole thing reminds me of a story from back in my home area which highlighted the power of spin and interpretation, it went something like this:

A young child was playing football in Albert Park in Middlesbrough when he was attacked by a Pit bull terrier. A workman from Newcastle working on a nearby building site witnessed the attack and ran over, he kicked the dog until it dropped the child and ran away. Interviewed the next day by the Evening Chronicle in Newcastle the headline stated -

_"Heroic builder saves child from certain death"_

After being interviewed by the Evening Gazette in Middlesbrough their headline that night was -

_"Geordie Bastard attacks family pet"_

You'll see it how you want to see it.


----------



## noushka05

Magnus said:


> I'm completely calm thanks, probably because I don't believe that this change in legislation is a "call to kill" but then I'm not writing headlines for the Guardian or trying to stir up unnecessary strife on here.
> 
> Perhaps I should start a thread called "_Government changes rules to protect assistance dogs"._
> 
> Oh hang on a minute, that's true so that's no good.
> 
> You see this whole thing reminds me of a story from back in my home area which highlighted the power of spin and interpretation, it went something like this:
> 
> A young child was playing football in Albert Park in Middlesbrough when he was attacked by a Pit bull terrier. A workman from Newcastle working on a nearby building site witnessed the attack and ran over, he kicked the dog until it dropped the child and ran away. Interviewed the next day by the Evening Chronicle in Newcastle the headline stated -
> 
> _"Heroic builder saves child from certain death"_
> 
> After being interviewed by the Evening Gazette in Middlesbrough their headline that night was -
> 
> _"Geordie Bastard attacks family pet"_
> 
> You'll see it how you want to see it.


Removing protected status is a bit different from your examples though

If you believe this governments spin, that they want to remove protections incase they pose a health hazard & they don't really have an ulterior motive - then all I can say is thank goodness we all aren't as gullible as you are lol - we'd have no wildlife left!

Wow 92,000 have signed the petition now! it was only started a couple of days ago! http://www.thepetitionsite.com/877/675/729/dont-let-them-kill-the-birds-and-destroy-their-eggs/ Great to see so many others think this is a serious issue!


----------



## Magnus

It's great to see that fewer than 100,000 (from all countries) have been duped into thinking this is a "call to kill".

As for being gullible, you've got that crown pet.


----------



## noushka05

Magnus said:


> It's great to see that fewer than 100,000 (from all countries) have been duped into thinking this is a "call to kill".
> 
> As for being gullible, you've got that crown pet.


 If you say so luv lol

You just keep on believing govt spin


----------



## Magnus

But how is it spin to say "If a birds nest is potentially causing harm you can move it"? 

Are they really saying "You can now shoot all Robins for no reason whatsoever"? Come off it.

If I discovered a nest of any bird in the outlet for my oil-fired boiler for example, even before this change, I would have removed it to save us from carbon monoxide poisoning; the alternative being to have no heat or hot water.
I don't think that makes me evil and I'm certain that I'm no more likely, or less likely, to do the same thing since this change.
It really isn't a big deal unless you decide to make it one.


----------



## noushka05

Magnus said:


> But how is it spin to say "If a birds nest is potentially causing harm you can move it"?
> 
> Are they really saying "You can now shoot all Robins for no reason whatsoever"? Come off it.
> 
> If I discovered a nest of any bird in the outlet for my oil-fired boiler for example, even before this change, I would have removed it to save us from carbon monoxide poisoning; the alternative being to have no heat or hot water.
> I don't think that makes me evil and I'm certain that I'm no more likely, or less likely, to do the same thing since this change.
> It really isn't a big deal unless you decide to make it one.


Placing them on a general license is removing the protection they had and downgrading them to 'pest' status. Why do you think conservation organisations are so concerned?

Anyway, its pretty obvious, to those with an open mind, this isn't a govt concerned for our safety, this is a govt intent on enabling developers to develop unhindered. >> Here's the real reason the Tories are allowing the destruction of robin eggs and nests | Pride's Purge So I shall continue to make this a BIG deal - because I believe it is a big deal - if you don't think it is, then that is your prerogative.

.


----------



## Knightofalbion

Magnus said:


> On the contrary, I know you're wrong and more to the point you know you're wrong. People get their kicks by coming on here and deliberately sensationalising a completely sensible change in a minor piece of legislation which allows some birds nests to be moved if and when health & safety issues require it.
> 
> The thread is called the thread "Call for killing of Robins, Starlings and Wagtails" when it is nothing of the sort, to try and make it sound like they're going to be hunted FFS. The saddest part of the whole episode is the way that people on here just accept such a ludicrous notion and then add to it by suggesting it's all part of a huge conspiracy (presumably by the Tories) to kill all wildlife.


I see no valid reason to change the law as it stands. It does nothing but open a door to unscrupulous developers. 
Unlikely but using it as an example, if it was a nightingale nest what's the betting it would become "only a robin's nest" and disappear. 
The law was originally introduced for a good reason and with bird numbers broadly declining there is more than a good reason for it to stay and not be watered down.

Well, badgers, birds, beavers ... Plus, they're itching to re-legalize fox hunting, hare coursing and stag hunting. 
If that's the new 'caring' side of Conservatism I'd hate to see them when they've got their gander up!


----------



## Knightofalbion

Magnus said:


> But how is it spin to say "If a birds nest is potentially causing harm you can move it"?
> 
> Are they really saying "You can now shoot all Robins for no reason whatsoever"? Come off it.
> 
> If I discovered a nest of any bird in the outlet for my oil-fired boiler for example, even before this change, I would have removed it to save us from carbon monoxide poisoning; the alternative being to have no heat or hot water.
> I don't think that makes me evil and I'm certain that I'm no more likely, or less likely, to do the same thing since this change.
> It really isn't a big deal unless you decide to make it one.


All of which is adequately covered by the existing legislation.

There's no chance of birds nesting in my boiler's ventilation flue, because - like everyone else I know - it has a cowl. I'm wondering why yours doesn't.


----------



## Knightofalbion

Magnus said:


> As for being gullible, you've got that crown pet.


Ms Gullible

Or the most good-hearted person on the forum, depending on your point of view.


----------



## Magnus

noushka05 said:


> Here's the real reason the Tories are allowing the destruction of robin eggs and nests | Pride's Purge[/url] So I shall continue to make this a BIG deal - because I believe it is a big deal - if you don't think it is, then that is your prerogative.


Oh right, the REAL reason as stated by Tom Pride, confirmed lefty, Tory hating blogger. Good, great to get the unbiased facts.


----------



## Magnus

Knightofalbion said:


> Ms Gullible
> 
> Or the most good-hearted person on the forum, depending on your point of view.


Pass the bucket.


----------



## rona

Knightofalbion said:


> I see no valid reason to change the law as it stands. It does nothing but open a door to unscrupulous developers.


Lets face it, the unscrupulous would never have taken notice of the law anyway


----------



## Cleo38

Magnus said:


> But how is it spin to say "If a birds nest is potentially causing harm you can move it"?
> 
> Are they really saying "You can now shoot all Robins for no reason whatsoever"? Come off it.
> 
> If I discovered a nest of any bird in the outlet for my oil-fired boiler for example, even before this change, I would have removed it to save us from carbon monoxide poisoning; the alternative being to have no heat or hot water.
> I don't think that makes me evil and I'm certain that I'm no more likely, or less likely, to do the same thing since this change.
> It really isn't a big deal unless you decide to make it one.


I don't think many people are even aware of laws regarding bird nests & those that are probably wouldn't think twice about removing a nest if it were impacting on their home .... & I wouldn't blame them

We had to stop work on site once as a rare type of wasp was spotted ..... I darent ask how much that cost the scheme as a survey had to be carried out!


----------



## Lulus mum

Signed-total so far

96,285.
Please sign and share if you havent already.

Maureen


----------



## Magnus

Cleo38 said:


> We had to stop work on site once as a rare type of wasp was spotted ..... I darent ask how much that cost the scheme as a survey had to be carried out!


I wish all wasps were rare.  The stripy little buggers sting me every year. I have found that petrol and a Zippo is the best means of "moving" a wasps nest.

Dons tin hat and awaits the attack of the permanently outraged.


----------



## Cleo38

magnus said:


> i wish all wasps were rare.  The stripy little buggers sting me every year. I have found that petrol and a zippo is the best means of "moving" a wasps nest.
> 
> Dons tin hat and awaits the attack of the permanently outraged.


.....  :laugh:


----------



## rona

Magnus said:


> I wish all wasps were rare.  The stripy little buggers sting me every year. I have found that petrol and a Zippo is the best means of "moving" a wasps nest.
> 
> Dons tin hat and awaits the attack of the permanently outraged.


   

Not necessary. As long as you leave them alone they will leave you alone.

I worked for 2 summers in a barn with my head just inches from a wasp nest and I have a friend with a nest every year in an air brick by their back door. None of us have been stung


----------



## Cleo38

rona said:


> Not necessary. As long as you leave them alone they will leave you alone.
> 
> I worked for 2 summers in a barn with my head just inches from a wasp nest and I have a friend with a nest every year in an air brick by their back door. None of us have been stung


I wouldn't (& don't) take pleasure in killing anything but there is no way a wasps nest would be left within a mile of my house.

I have always gone out of my way to avoid those [email protected] & they have gone out of their way to sting me!


----------



## Magnus

rona said:


> Not necessary. As long as you leave them alone they will leave you alone.
> 
> I worked for 2 summers in a barn with my head just inches from a wasp nest and I have a friend with a nest every year in an air brick by their back door. None of us have been stung


I've tried the leave it alone and it'll leave you alone approach and it doesn't work for me. I think they smell fear!  
We've had two wasps nests at our house in the last ten years or so and they've been very aggressive little blighters - so they became very hot and crispy.


----------



## Jesthar

noushka05 said:


> The title of the thread mirrors the title of news article I linked to. *Yes they do it to grab attention*, but destroying eggs & quite possibly chicks is killing them as far as i'm concerned, people can then read the article and make their own mind up.


And I _really_ wish they wouldn't. The reason being the practice simply makes a lot of people who are initially attracted by the shock-horror headline and genuine concern over what is going on, end up thinking "oh, was that it? I feel duped... Probably won't bother reading similar articles in the future, they'll probably all be as hyped..." when they get through the actual detail of the article.

To use this specific example, I opened this thread and accompanying articles with visions of robins, starlings and wagtails being set up as the targets of shotgun wielding anti-songbird hit squads. Instead it turns out to be more along the lines of you'll no longer need a special license to move a nest of one of these species if they nest somewhere which might cause problems, such an an air vent.

So, a more realistic - yet still attention grabbing - headline would have been "Call to remove mandatory protection from robin, starling and wagtail nests!" That would still have got most people's attention (certainly would have got mine) without the nasty taste of exaggeration.

Personally I don't see any need to change the existing legislation in this case. I had a starling nest in my loft eaves a few years ago thanks to a loose bit of roof lining, and three of the bird-brains fledged the wrong way _into_ my loft.  I spent the best part of a day rescuing them, even having to get the side off the bath after one of them launched itself down the pipework duct - but I got 'em all out the end


----------



## noushka05

Magnus said:


> Oh right, the REAL reason as stated by Tom Pride, confirmed lefty, Tory hating blogger. Good, great to get the unbiased facts.


Many environmentalists, conservationists voiced their fears long before the Tom Pride blog, and all singing from the same song sheet as the blog.

Heres a Ralph Underhill cartoon, circa December 2013 





Magnus said:


> I wish all wasps were rare.  The stripy little buggers sting me every year. I have found that petrol and a Zippo is the best means of "moving" a wasps nest.
> 
> Dons tin hat and awaits the attack of the permanently outraged.


Permanently outraged AND pretty depressed if you don't mind! lol But I actually really do love wasps, not only are they beautiful but they are important as pollinators. Reminds me of this wall art pic I saw the other day, not of a wasp but a bee. Time is fast running out for our finite natural world, if we don't start caring for it soon, it will be too late for many species.





Jesthar said:


> And I _really_ wish they wouldn't. The reason being the practice simply makes a lot of people who are initially attracted by the shock-horror headline and genuine concern over what is going on, end up thinking "oh, was that it? I feel duped... Probably won't bother reading similar articles in the future, they'll probably all be as hyped..." when they get through the actual detail of the article.
> 
> To use this specific example, I opened this thread and accompanying articles with visions of robins, starlings and wagtails being set up as the targets of shotgun wielding anti-songbird hit squads. Instead it turns out to be more along the lines of you'll no longer need a special license to move a nest of one of these species if they nest somewhere which might cause problems, such an an air vent.
> 
> So, a more realistic - yet still attention grabbing - headline would have been "Call to remove mandatory protection from robin, starling and wagtail nests!" That would still have got most people's attention (certainly would have got mine) without the nasty taste of exaggeration.
> 
> Personally I don't see any need to change the existing legislation in this case. I had a starling nest in my loft eaves a few years ago thanks to a loose bit of roof lining, and three of the bird-brains fledged the wrong way _into_ my loft.  I spent the best part of a day rescuing them, even having to get the side off the bath after one of them launched itself down the pipework duct - but I got 'em all out the end


I think it depends how important wildlife is to someone. To me, nature is my priority and so no headline stops me reading on and investigating further. But everyones different I suppose.



Lulus mum said:


> Signed-total so far
> 
> 96,285.
> Please sign and share if you havent already.
> 
> Maureen


Thank you ever so much Maureen x its over 99,000 now, an incredible number in such a short time.


----------



## Magnus

If you let me have your address next time I find a wasps nest I'll send it to you. 
They are horrible creatures and they are a threat to the declining bee population so my burning wasp nests is an act of conservation.


----------



## rona

Magnus said:


> If you let me have your address next time I find a wasps nest I'll send it to you.
> They are horrible creatures and they are a threat to the declining bee population so my burning wasp nests is an act of conservation.


I think you will find that the human race is a far bigger threat to honey bees. Lets kill them off first :thumbsup:


----------



## noushka05

Magnus said:


> If you let me have your address next time I find a wasps nest I'll send it to you.
> They are horrible creatures and they are a threat to the declining bee population so my burning wasp nests is an act of conservation.


No WE are the only threat to bees, predation is a minor factor and a natural part of nature. Wasps & bees have coexisted since time immemorial without any adverse effect on the bee population. Scapegoating wasps is plain ludicrous.

Bees AND wasps are in decline due to our use of neonicotinoids & gm crops. Bee populations all over the world are crashing!.

Heres a recent article I read, about 37 MILLION bees found dead in Ontario, killed by gm crops treated with neonics.

37 millions bees found dead in Ontario, Canada after planting large GMO corn field treated with neonicotinoid class of pesticides

Again our reckless ANTI Environment minister Paterson is pushing for GM crops here, even his own tory party collegue, Zac Goldsmith , call him an industry puppet http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...owen-paterson-is-industry-puppet-8686133.html This govt fought the EU against banning neonics >

_ Were he to do so, he would find himself in serious trouble with his boss. Just as they are systematically poisoning our ecosystems, neonicotinoids have also poisoned the policies (admittedly pretty toxic already) of the department supposed to be regulating them. In April, the Observer published a letter sent by the minister in charge of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Owen Paterson, to Syngenta, which manufactures some of these pesticides. Paterson promised the company that his efforts to prevent its products from being banned "will continue and intensify in the coming days".

And sure enough, the UK refused to support the temporary bans proposed by the commission both in April and in July, despite the massive petitions and the 80,000 emails on the subject that Paterson received. When Paterson and his department "Deathra" were faced with a choice between the survival of natural world and the profits of the pesticides companies, there was not much doubt about how they would jump. Fortunately they failed. _

Neonicotinoids are the new DDT killing the natural world | George Monbiot | Environment | theguardian.com

This corrupt & greedy govt are the ones to blame for killing our declining bees not wasps!


----------



## alan g a

Every living thing is a potential health hazard, including man. Why not just kill everything?
It is sad that many people seem to think that life on earth belongs to them and they can just do what they like with it, without regard to the possible consequences. Many creatures can be a threat to man, but none are as big a threat as man is to himself and the planet.


----------



## Knightofalbion

alan g a said:


> Every living thing is a potential health hazard, including man. Why not just kill everything?
> It is sad that many people seem to think that life on earth belongs to them and they can just do what they like with it, without regard to the possible consequences. Many creatures can be a threat to man, but none are as big a threat as man is to himself and the planet.


Very well said, dear Alan.

Everything has its place and its role to play in Creation - and everything has as much right to be here as we humans do.


----------



## alan g a

Knightofalbion said:


> Very well said, dear Alan.
> 
> Everything has its place and its role to play in Creation - and everything has as much right to be here as we humans do.


In some cases, more right to be here. After all, many of them where here long before man made his first appearance.


----------



## Cleo38

alan g a said:


> Every living thing is a potential health hazard, including man. Why not just kill everything?
> It is sad that many people seem to think that life on earth belongs to them and they can just do what they like with it, without regard to the possible consequences. Many creatures can be a threat to man, but none are as big a threat as man is to himself and the planet.


But, unfortunately killing certain animals for certain reasons will always happen.

I have chickens & recently the rats that have been living in the garden have multiplied quite quickly & are bothering the chickens; stealing their food & at times, I noticed, keeping the chickens away from the feeders.

I have tried many things; changing the feeders, repositioning them, filling up the rat holes, etc but they always manage a way round this. I have also tried human traps but they are claver enough to avoid them. So I have shot them. I've been practising to make sure I get a clean shot (as I actually don't want them to suffer).

I've got 10 so far, it's not something I feel good about at all, quite the opposite tbh but I can't have my chickens starving because the rats are not letting them eat.


----------



## Scabbers

This will probably get laughed at and shot in flames but hey ho rofl

As the rats are eating your food anyway and preventing the hens eating have you thought about putting another feeding station in your garden such as NEXT to your coop?

So the rats will begin to eat at the little station instead of the hens. Then slowly move it accross the garden into a more private area? Maby put more appealing food into "their dish".

Tyhen once the rats are safely eating out their dish and are far enough away from the hens pick them off with your gun?

Just a thought. Prob wont work but worth a try?


----------



## Scabbers

As for the killing of garden birds. What utter rot.

I'm waiting for them to say that poor people are subhuman and should start externination of them next....

Wouldnt suprise me


----------



## alan g a

Whilst I sympathise with anyone who has problems with rats, or any other PESTS. However, this doesn't give anybody the right to indiscriminately destroy what nature has taken millions of years to create. In some cases, the problem is because the food is inadvertently provided by man. As I said in my original post. Man is his own worst enemy.


----------



## Cleo38

Scabbers said:


> This will probably get laughed at and shot in flames but hey ho rofl
> 
> As the rats are eating your food anyway and preventing the hens eating have you thought about putting another feeding station in your garden such as NEXT to your coop?
> 
> So the rats will begin to eat at the little station instead of the hens. Then slowly move it accross the garden into a more private area? Maby put more appealing food into "their dish".
> 
> Tyhen once the rats are safely eating out their dish and are far enough away from the hens pick them off with your gun?
> 
> Just a thought. Prob wont work but worth a try?


Exactly what I did!

Have looked out all today & haven't seen one. Unfortunately I have lost 2 hens this week &bwhilsy this was mainly due to age I don't think the rat problem helped


----------



## Crazy Mazy

Cleo38 said:


> But, unfortunately killing certain animals for certain reasons will always happen.
> 
> I have chickens & recently the rats that have been living in the garden have multiplied quite quickly & are bothering the chickens; stealing their food & at times, I noticed, keeping the chickens away from the feeders.
> 
> I have tried many things; changing the feeders, repositioning them, filling up the rat holes, etc but they always manage a way round this. I have also tried human traps but they are claver enough to avoid them. So I have shot them. I've been practising to make sure I get a clean shot (as I actually don't want them to suffer).
> 
> I've got 10 so far, it's not something I feel good about at all, quite the opposite tbh but I can't have my chickens starving because the rats are not letting them eat.


Adopt a cat. Seriously. I leave food out 24/7 for the hedgehogs and foxes and have never had a problem with rats with my patrolling cats. A cat's scent is enough to deter a rat. Fact.


----------



## rona

Crazy Mazy said:


> Adopt a cat. Seriously. I leave food out 24/7 for the hedgehogs and foxes and have never had a problem with rats with my patrolling cats. A cat's scent is enough to deter a rat. Fact.


Had several farm cats on the farm I worked on, had loads of rats too 

You don't think the fox may be the reason for the lack of rats?


----------



## Cleo38

Crazy Mazy said:


> Adopt a cat. Seriously. I leave food out 24/7 for the hedgehogs and foxes and have never had a problem with rats with my patrolling cats. A cat's scent is enough to deter a rat. Fact.


Sorry you are wrong. I have 2 cats (& 2 dogs), both cats are avid hunters & bring in plenty of rats ... but the numbers were continuing to increase.

Tbh I think that the rats had a more humane death being shot (instant death) rather than tortured for ages before being left half dead by the cats


----------



## rona

Cleo38 said:


> Sorry you are wrong. I have 2 cats (& 2 dogs), both cats are avid hunters & bring in plenty of rats ... but the numbers were continuing to increase.
> 
> Tbh I think that the rats had a more humane death being shot (instant death) rather than* tortured for ages before being left half dead *by the cats


Or fox


----------



## Knightofalbion

Could have done without that.

Not sure of the point trying to be made.

A wild animal is slave to its nature and knows no better. We humans should know better. We should be living to our higher nature and not defiling our soul by engaging in acts of bloodshed and cruelty.


----------



## vivien

I have signed the petition and shared on FB 

Viv xx


----------



## rona

Crazy Mazy said:


> Adopt a cat. Seriously. I leave food out 24/7 for the hedgehogs and foxes and have never had a problem with rats with my patrolling cats. A cat's scent is enough to deter a rat. Fact.





Knightofalbion said:


> Could have done without that.
> 
> Not sure of the point trying to be made.


The point being made was that Foxes eat rats and therefore having foxes around would be more effective to rid yourself of rats than having cats. Most cats won't bother a fully grown rat.


----------



## Cleo38

Knightofalbion said:


> Could have done without that.
> 
> Not sure of the point trying to be made.
> 
> A wild animal is slave to its nature and knows no better. We humans should know better. We should be living to our higher nature and not defiling our soul by engaging in acts of bloodshed and cruelty.


So was I 'defiling my soul' by killing rats? Personally, I feel I was protecting my chickens but if you have any other suggestions of how o could get rid of the rats I would be grateful to hear them


----------



## Knightofalbion

Cleo38 said:


> So was I 'defiling my soul' by killing rats? Personally, I feel I was protecting my chickens but if you have any other suggestions of how o could get rid of the rats I would be grateful to hear them


It was a general observation rather than aimed at anyone in particular.

I don't keep poultry but I can certainly see the attraction and I must admit the idea of giving a home to ex-battery hens does appeal - though not for eggs, just to give them freedom and a chance of happiness.

If it was me, I'd use weld mesh. 12 inches down and with a 6 inch (out) turn to prevent anything burrowing in. That should stop any rodent.

Furthermore, I'd use raised feeders and be mindful not to overfeed and to keep the feeding area clean. It's nature, the rodents have to eat too and its not the chicken but the feed that attracts them.


----------



## noushka05

Wise words ...





vivien said:


> I have signed the petition and shared on FB
> 
> Viv xx


Thank you very much Viv

,


----------



## Cleo38

Knightofalbion said:


> It was a general observation rather than aimed at anyone in particular.
> 
> I don't keep poultry but I can certainly see the attraction and I must admit the idea of giving a home to ex-battery hens does appeal - though not for eggs, just to give them freedom and a chance of happiness.
> 
> If it was me, I'd use weld mesh. 12 inches down and with a 6 inch (out) turn to prevent anything burrowing in. That should stop any rodent.
> 
> Furthermore, I'd use raised feeders and be mindful not to overfeed and to keep the feeding area clean. It's nature, the rodents have to eat too and its not the chicken but the feed that attracts them.


All done, the fencing was constructed in such a way more to prevent foxes although we have never had a problems with them despite many foxes being in the area (probably the dogs having free access to the garden) that deters them.

Seeing the ex-batts especially. turn from quiet, timid birds into confident, happy chooks is lovely, so quickly they return to 'normal' chicken behaviour - it is a joy to see 

My chickens are pets, if they don't lay I am not bothered - the eggs are an added bonus.

Without wishing to derail the thread I am simply trying to point out that sometimes people kill animals, not for pleasure, or due to laziness or it being the easier option (in my circumstances I have not felt at all good about killing the rats & it has not been an 'easy' option at all) but at times necessary for the protection of other animals.

I have had to cull two chooks this week (due to illness), this past week has been the first time I have had to kill animals & has been one of the most disturbing things I have ever had to do. It's never, ever easy but in the case of the chooks, necessary to prevent their suffering.


----------



## noushka05

Cleo38 said:


> All done, the fencing was constructed in such a way more to prevent foxes although we have never had a problems with them despite many foxes being in the area (probably the dogs having free access to the garden) that deters them.
> 
> Seeing the ex-batts especially. turn from quiet, timid birds into confident, happy chooks is lovely, so quickly they return to 'normal' chicken behaviour - it is a joy to see
> 
> My chickens are pets, if they don't lay I am not bothered - the eggs are an added bonus.
> 
> Without wishing to derail the thread I am simply trying to point out that sometimes people kill animals, not for pleasure, or due to laziness or it being the easier option (in my circumstances I have not felt at all good about killing the rats & it has not been an 'easy' option at all) but at times necessary for the protection of other animals.
> 
> I have had to cull two chooks this week (due to illness), this past week has been the first time I have had to kill animals & has been one of the most disturbing things I have ever had to do. It's never, ever easy but in the case of the chooks, necessary to prevent their suffering.


Sorry to hear about your chicken losses Cleo. My FIL keeps pigeons and a few chickens, and hes had rat problems in the past, though not so much with the chickens as their shed has been well rodent proofed, it was the pigeon loft they kept getting into. He did use to kill the rats in traps but my hubby helped him completely rat proof the loft & hes had no problem with them for a long time. The chickens do have a pen but they usually get full run of the huge allotment in the day time, he scatters some feed out for them but when he locks them up in the shed at night the rats can't get it to steal their food.

My next door neighbour has a live trap and he has trapped and relocated a few rats - I think this might be illegal, but hey ho, im certainly not going to tell anyone! lol

Looking at this From an ecological/conservation point of view, rats are a non indigenous species, their population is under no threat what so ever, so in this respect killing them is incomparable with the destruction of vulnerable native species . By removing protection for these birds nests and eggs, taking the easy option is exactly what they are doing.

,


----------



## rona

Knightofalbion said:


> It was a general observation rather than aimed at anyone in particular.
> 
> I don't keep poultry but I can certainly see the attraction and I must admit the idea of giving a home to ex-battery hens does appeal - though not for eggs, just to give them freedom and a chance of happiness.
> 
> If it was me, I'd use weld mesh. *12 inches down and with a 6 inch (out) turn to prevent anything burrowing in. That should stop any rodent.*
> 
> Furthermore, I'd use raised feeders and be mindful not to overfeed and to keep the feeding area clean. It's nature, the rodents have to eat too and its not the chicken but the feed that attracts them.


Rats have burrows up to 3 meters deep. I don't think the small barrier that you suggest would be a deterrent to them at all.
Also, any feeder a chicken could reach, a rat would have no problem accessing


----------



## Magnus

I have 4 different "permissions" near to my home where I shoot rats for the land owners. On one of them at this time of year the rats are attacking and killing confined ducklings at night (the noise is horrible) and I have been trying to shoot as many as possible before they get into the duck shed. 
Rats are a huge problem but if people were more disciplined about food storage and spillages being cleaned up it wouldn't be half as bad. They are now reaching plague-like numbers around farms near us and me and my air rifle & night vision combo are in constant demand. It's not a particularly pleasant job (unpaid) but after a few dogs were lost to Weil's disease last year I consider it a worthwhile mission to reduce the rat population as much as possible.


----------



## rona

Magnus said:


> I have 4 different "permissions" near to my home where I shoot rats for the land owners. On one of them at this time of year the rats are attacking and killing confined ducklings at night (the noise is horrible) and I have been trying to shoot as many as possible before they get into the duck shed.
> Rats are a huge problem but if people were more disciplined about food storage and spillages being cleaned up it wouldn't be half as bad. They are now reaching plague-like numbers around farms near us and me and my air rifle & night vision combo are in constant demand. It's not a particularly pleasant job (unpaid) but after a few dogs were lost to Weil's disease last year I consider it a worthwhile mission to reduce the rat population as much as possible.


The RSPB do the same


----------



## StormyThai

Magnus said:


> I have 4 different "permissions" near to my home where I shoot rats for the land owners. On one of them at this time of year the rats are attacking and killing confined ducklings at night (the noise is horrible) and I have been trying to shoot as many as possible before they get into the duck shed.
> Rats are a huge problem but if people were more disciplined about food storage and spillages being cleaned up it wouldn't be half as bad. They are now reaching plague-like numbers around farms near us and me and my air rifle & night vision combo are in constant demand. It's not a particularly pleasant job (unpaid) *but after a few dogs were lost to Weil's disease* last year I consider it a worthwhile mission to reduce the rat population as much as possible.


Do you go around killing all the cattle in the area too?
They are carriers just like rats....Picking off rats will not make an impact on weil's, however, not allowing dogs to swim in untreated water will


----------



## Magnus

I personally don't go around killing all the cattle in the area no but someone must do because we seem to eat a lot of them and make shoes and wallets etc. from their arse covering. 
Thanks for the advice about dogs, I will be sure to tell all the local dog owners to make sure that their dogs all undertake a water suitability lab test before jumping in the river / stream / **** / culvert etc. while out on a walk.

If the farmers / smallholders ask me to kill rats because they are losing ducklings to them, or just because their premises are infested, I will try to help if I can. I don't really listen to the "_It's cruel to shoot them_" brigade because if they sat and watched rats killing ducklings they'd want to shoot them too. They are despatched swiftly and cleanly with the minimum of suffering, better than poisoning or being tortured by the farm cat - if you can find one that will take on a shed full of big brown long-tails!
It ain't pleasant but it's part of life in the sticks.


----------



## StormyThai

I am far from "It's cruel to shoot them" brigade. 

I too would much rather see a good marksmen shoot a rat over poison or trapping (snap traps and such). I would much prefer that people clean up feed and put measures in place to stop the rats entering BUT I am fully aware that rats can pose problems so getting a marksmen in is the "best" option.

I was just pointing out that the reason you stated (as in trying to control weil's) is flawed as cattle carry it, so the ONLY way to protect your (general) dog is to not allow them to swim in untreated water.


----------



## Cleo38

Magnus said:


> I personally don't go around killing all the cattle in the area no but someone must do because we seem to eat a lot of them and make shoes and wallets etc. from their arse covering.
> Thanks for the advice about dogs, I will be sure to tell all the local dog owners to make sure that their dogs all undertake a water suitability lab test before jumping in the river / stream / **** / culvert etc. while out on a walk.
> 
> If the farmers / smallholders ask me to kill rats because they are losing ducklings to them, or just because their premises are infested, I will try to help if I can. I don't really listen to the "_It's cruel to shoot them_" brigade because if they sat and watched rats killing ducklings they'd want to shoot them too. They are despatched swiftly and cleanly with the minimum of suffering, better than poisoning or being tortured by the farm cat - if you can find one that will take on a shed full of big brown long-tails!
> It ain't pleasant but it's part of life in the sticks.


I agree, I take measures to ensure I am not encouraging rats but as I live in the countryside, next to a river it is inevitable I have rats.

I wasn't too bothered by them until they started eating the chicken feed. I am not having my chickens go hungry simply so the rats can eat. They are clever enough to avoid all traps so I also shoot them. It's quick & IMO the most humane way to get rid of them.

Last year I got a bit of stick as I was fed up with the starlings stealing the chickens food. I realise that starlings are becoming less common (although you wouldn't think so where I live!) but I couldn't afford to spend £10 a week on chicken food which is what I was doing at one point as they were eating so much (£30 a month more!).

Unfortunately one of my cats got one of the starlings (Luckily it was unharmed) but the fact that she was prowling around the area from then on deterred them & stopped me having to fork out so much on food each month


----------



## Magnus

StormyThai said:


> I am far from "It's cruel to shoot them" brigade.
> 
> I too would much rather see a good marksmen shoot a rat over poison or trapping (snap traps and such). I would much prefer that people clean up feed and put measures in place to stop the rats entering BUT I am fully aware that rats can pose problems so getting a marksmen in is the "best" option.
> 
> I was just pointing out that the reason you stated (as in trying to control weil's) is flawed as cattle carry it, so the ONLY way to protect your (general) dog is to not allow them to swim in untreated water.


I actually said that after some dogs were lost to Weil's disease last year I decided it was a worthwhile mission to try to reduce the rat population, it worried me as the owner of a dog who loves swimming. That was the trigger (pardon the pun) for me getting involved unofficially with rat control. I am under no illusion that me shooting iro of 500 rats a year will eradicate Weil's disease, as you says cows peeing into the rivers etc. is just as bad. The problem of rats on your land (peeing as they walk) around garden sheds etc. where your dog may go and sniff and stand on the rat pee with a cut pad CAN be reduced by shooting the long-tails.
The fact remains that sometimes creatures can become pests by their very presence, whether it's rats killing ducklings or rabbit's holes leading to broken limbs for cattle or horses. Sometimes it is necessary to kill things - no-one (hopefully) gets a thrill from it, it isn't pleasant but it is sometimes the only viable option.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> Rats have burrows up to 3 meters deep. I don't think the small barrier that you suggest would be a deterrent to them at all.
> Also, any feeder a chicken could reach, a rat would have no problem accessing


My FIL has solid floors, even in his pigeon flights, so no chance of rats burrowing in.



rona said:


> The RSPB do the same


Do you think the RSPB is an animal rights organisation Rona?



Magnus said:


> I actually said that after some dogs were lost to Weil's disease last year I decided it was a worthwhile mission to try to reduce the rat population, it worried me as the owner of a dog who loves swimming. That was the trigger (pardon the pun) for me getting involved unofficially with rat control. I am under no illusion that me shooting iro of 500 rats a year will eradicate Weil's disease, as you says cows peeing into the rivers etc. is just as bad. The problem of rats on your land (peeing as they walk) around garden sheds etc. where your dog may go and sniff and stand on the rat pee with a cut pad CAN be reduced by shooting the long-tails
> 
> The fact remains that sometimes creatures can become pests by their very presence, whether it's rats killing ducklings or rabbit's holes leading to broken limbs for cattle or horses.
> 
> Sometimes it is necessary to kill things - no-one (hopefully) gets a thrill from it, it isn't pleasant but it is sometimes the only viable option.


Even our precious native wildlife are 'pests' in the eyes of some. - Robins,Starlings, Wagtails pests to developers, Raptors (& just about everything else that moves) pests to game shoots, badgers 'spreading tb' to cattle, Peregrine & Spars pests to pigeon fanciers, Cormorants pests to fisheries - lets just pander to the greedy & the intolerant & destroy destroy everything.

Heres a great & very relevent article by Patrick Barkham. ( Anyone who cares about badgers, I highly recommend Patricks book Badgerlands - it includes their savage persecution over the centuries right up to today & the present badger cull) What do robins, badgers and buzzards have in common? They're all on the Tories' kill list | Patrick Barkham | Comment is free | theguardian.com

*What do robins, badgers and buzzards have in common? They're all on the Tories' kill list
Patrick Barkham

Britain's wildlife is trapped between traditional Tories and their neoliberal counterparts, who think any green regulation a burden
*

_

*Robins. Starlings. Pied wagtails. Badgers. Herring gulls. Buzzards. Cormorants. Grey squirrels. Foxes. The kill list created by the UK government is getting so long it is starting to look like the work of a psychopath. What can be compelling the coalition to be so brutal?*

The biggest challenge for nature lovers remains all the things that we and our politicians are not doing - our passivity when faced with habitat loss and climate change, which is creating a sixth great wave of extinction. But confronting these profound problems is more difficult when conservationists are forced to perpetually fight off the steps the government is taking to exterminate specific species. But what are the official reasons for each slaughter?

• The government agency responsible for protecting the environment, Natural England, wants to amend regulations to permit the rapid destruction of robin, pied wagtail and starling nests when they present "a health and safety hazard", such as being found in ventilation flues.

• Defra (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) is persisting with a four-year pilot badger cull in Somerset and Gloucestershire because scientists have shown that culling badgers produces a small reduction in bovine TB in cattle over nine years.

Advertisement

• The "removal" (Defra's preferred word for kill) of 475 breeding pairs of herring gulls and 552 breeding pairs of lesser black-backed gulls in the Ribble Valley was sanctioned by the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, last year because BAE Systems made a request to reduce risk to aircraft at an aerodrome.

• In 2012 Defra was forced to withdraw £400,000 of funding to research controlling buzzards around shooting estates, including removing nests and taking birds into captivity. The wildlife minister at the time was Richard Benyon, owner of a 20,000-acre estate with a pheasant shoot.

• Paterson has repeatedly spoken of his desire to control cormorants. "I am on record as saying we must never be frightened of managing our wildlife where appropriate," he told recreational anglers, who complain the birds are taking their fish.

• Paterson and Prince Charles also backed an "accord" in Scotland to undertake "targeted and sustained action" against grey squirrels to stop them further encroaching into land where red squirrels live.

• The Conservatives hoped to increase the pressure on their traditional adversary, the fox, by amending the hunting ban to allow farmers to use more than two dogs to flush one out and kill it, only for the Liberal Democrats to scupper the move.

It's not hard to see the common themes in this kill list. Paterson is on a one-man mission to reshape the environment by removing wild animals, from badgers to squirrels. "Give him time and he'll work his way through the alphabet," says my mole (a human one - another endangered species) inside government

*If it were just Paterson it might all be a bit of a joke, but wildlife today is caught in a pincer movement by the character of the contemporary Conservatives. On one side of the party, Paterson is crucial for David Cameron in reassuring traditional country supporters that modern Tories are not all effete metropolitan globalisers with no feel for hunting, shooting and fishing. On the other side, the Notting Hill neoliberals led by George Osborne view the countryside as a barbaric relic and free to be exploited, with any green regulation a "burden" and a "ridiculous cost" to British businesses, as the chancellor put it in his autumn statement a few years back.

Between them, these Tories ancient and modern are doing more to "bear down on wildlife" (as Paterson once famously let slip in parliament) than any government in history.

*
*
Environmentalists can attempt to price up nature and appeal all they like to concepts such as "ecosystem services", in the hope that Osborne and others might learn to value wildlife. But predatory capitalism will always bear down on the long-term health of our environment. As every species bar the grey squirrel on the kill list shows, our current leaders are unwilling to tolerate any living thing that inhibits anyone from maximising their profit.*

The only consolation is that this nasty rabble of animal killers are such poor predators. The Lib Dems have sabotaged some of the most audacious attempted murders, including a wider rollout of the badger cull. Britain's army of animal lovers have done their bit too. But some of the most effective resistance has been put up by the creatures themselves. Badgers have proved notoriously difficult to shoot, grey squirrels continue to flourish, and foxes still outfox. Robins show no sign yet of bearing arms but here's hoping they get tooled up in case of a Conservative majority next spring

_


----------



## Cleo38

I don't think you can label everyone who has a problem with 'pests' 'greedy & intolerant' ... some most definitley are & I agree do not take any notice of wildlife or gain any enjoyment from their surroundings

There are many people I know who have small holdings or small businesses who suffer losses because of certain animals. Some can make changes to the environment or make preventative measures but some can't.

My friend has horses & has a problems with rabbits, their burrows are causing certain parts of her field to collapse & her horses are in danger of being injured if they trip. She gets someone in to shoot the rabbits & he then sells the carcasses (I buy some for the dogs).

As I said earlier, my cats deterred the starlings from the chicken area & I would do the same if they did chose to nest nearby as I can't afford to feed the big flocks that gather as well as my hens.


----------



## Magnus

It's a pity Guardian readers aren't on a kill list.


----------



## noushka05

Cleo38 said:


> I don't think you can label everyone who has a problem with 'pests' 'greedy & intolerant' ... some most definitley are & I agree do not take any notice of wildlife or gain any enjoyment from their surroundings
> 
> There are many people I know who have small holdings or small businesses who suffer losses because of certain animals. Some can make changes to the environment or make preventative measures but some can't.
> 
> My friend has horses & has a problems with rabbits, their burrows are causing certain parts of her field to collapse & her horses are in danger of being injured if they trip. She gets someone in to shoot the rabbits & he then sells the carcasses (I buy some for the dogs).
> 
> As I said earlier, my cats deterred the starlings from the chicken area & I would do the same if they did chose to nest nearby as I can't afford to feed the big flocks that gather as well as my hens.


I'm sure not everyone is greedy or intolerant, but the government should not be weakening protections to make it easier to for those that are to sweep nature aside so readily & without consequences.

.


----------



## noushka05

Magnus said:


> It's a pity Guardian readers aren't on a kill list.


lol I can tell you're more of a Daily Mail & Telegraph reader

.


----------



## Jesthar

noushka05 said:


> My *FIL has solid floors*, even in his pigeon flights, so no chance of rats burrowing in.[/I]


Can't think of that as being an animal welfare conscious choice for chickens, though - putting solid flooring in an outdoor run pretty much reduces a free range habitat to barn conditions and puts the kybosh on a lot of natural behaviours. Well, unless you're going to install a sort of giant concrete trough so you can have a deep layer of earth on top for the chickens to scratch about for grubs in.

Given that rats are non-native, not to mention a threat to some native wildlife, songbirds included, I don't have a problem with their numbers being reduced in a humane fashion.

And, just for the record, I don't read ANY newspapers


----------



## Magnus

noushka05 said:


> lol I can tell you're more of a Daily Mail & Telegraph reader
> 
> .


How very dare you! 
The Independent and the York Evening Press.

Oh, and Viz.


----------



## noushka05

Jesthar said:


> Can't think of that as being an animal welfare conscious choice for chickens, though - putting solid flooring in an outdoor run pretty much reduces a free range habitat to barn conditions and puts the kybosh on a lot of natural behaviours. Well, unless you're going to install a sort of giant concrete trough so you can have a deep layer of earth on top for the chickens to scratch about for grubs in.
> 
> Given that rats are non-native, not to mention a threat to some native wildlife, songbirds included, I don't have a problem with their numbers being reduced in a humane fashion.
> 
> And, just for the record, I don't read ANY newspapers


I was just saying how my FIL keeps them out of his birds. His chickens have a large grassed enclosure, but most of time they have free range of the whole of this allotment (apart from the pigeon enclosure). They have great lives.





Magnus said:


> How very dare you!
> The Independent and the York Evening Press.
> 
> Oh, and Viz.


Hahaaa - it was just a hunch

(I quite like the Independent by the way).

Hey talking of Viz, I saw this viz tweet the other day


----------



## rona

RSPB are an animal rights organization when it suits them, making judgments on others while killing 100s of deer and predator species on their reserves. 
I hold them in almost as much contempt as I do the RSPCA



Just as two faced as this government 

True conviction is very rare. I think the great Sir David Attenborough is one such, but most are just after money/status and the animals are the ones that suffer.

To quote someone you all seem to hold in high esteem

"Conservation - It's a business

So what's the problem? Conservation is very, very conservative and frighteningly inflexible. For all its modernisation it still seems rooted in a time when worthiness and self righteousness were essential fuels or tools to brow beat or confound or embarrass opponents into action or inaction. Despite the massive increase in the size and consequential financial turnover of the giant national and international charities, despite their necessary but often unpalatable corporatism, they still don't seem to realise that conservation is not a vocation, a religion, or a field where being right' is the answer. It's a business and we're running a little, ill respected and frequently ignored company whose managers continue to think that caring counts enough to change the world. It's no longer even a quaint or nice idea, it's an embarrassing naivety. It's why we are still waiting for old ladies to leave us their small fortunes instead of being taken seriously by global corporations. It's why we are still playing with nature reserves and Pandas instead of planning to make a real difference, now when we could, and so desperately need to.

And there's worse... Some of conservations big-boys' do actually have a little clout, and even more importantly they have rightfully earned respect, but because they are wrapped up in their new found game of politics, and all the compromises this sorry, silly game imposes they are increasingly pulling punches which should be launched and landed to make maximum impact. They can't do A because it will have a knock on effect with B which means C will get set back. They've joined the liars game and they are playing at our and the planets expense. Nice. It's a power issue, the have a little but are too scared to use it, because then some of their new friends won't talk to them, and some of their sacred members might get a bit upset."


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> The government agency responsible for protecting the environment, Natural England, wants to amend regulations to permit the rapid destruction of robin, pied wagtail and starling nests when they present "a health and safety hazard", such as being found in ventilation flues.


Oh look, NOT A GENERAL KILL ORDER (yes I can also colour and make large letters), only nests can be removed where they are a HEALTH AND SAFETY issue and without a license to do so.



noushka05 said:


> The "removal" (Defra's preferred word for kill) of 475 breeding pairs of herring gulls and 552 breeding pairs of lesser black-backed gulls in the Ribble Valley was sanctioned by the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, last year because BAE Systems made a request to reduce risk to aircraft at an aerodrome.


Concern over planes carrying people - Wonder why. Maybe it's HEALTH AND SAFETY of people who are at risk of

[youtube_browser]reKOiiwCU80[/youtube_browser]

Wouldn't of worked out nicely for the bird(s) in question either. This from a company who are also known to use falconry to scare birds away from some airfields.

When it comes down to it, mankind and animals do interfere with each other. What takes priority. According to some, it's animals but I doubt if they live "at one with nature" with no impact either. Then again I suppose that's the conservative's fault too.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> RSPB are an animal rights organization when it suits them, making judgments on others while killing 100s of deer and predator species on their reserves.
> I hold them in almost as much contempt as I do the RSPCA
> 
> Sorry making what judgements exactly? You surely aren't referring to them condemning raptor persecution by game shoots are you?
> 
> Just as two faced as this government
> 
> True conviction is very rare. I think the great Sir David Attenborough is one such, but most are just after money/status and the animals are the ones that suffer.
> 
> To quote someone you all seem to hold in high esteem
> 
> "Conservation - It's a business
> 
> So what's the problem? Conservation is very, very conservative and frighteningly inflexible. For all its modernisation it still seems rooted in a time when worthiness and self righteousness were essential fuels or tools to brow beat or confound or embarrass opponents into action or inaction. Despite the massive increase in the size and consequential financial turnover of the giant national and international charities, despite their necessary but often unpalatable corporatism, they still don't seem to realise that conservation is not a vocation, a religion, or a field where 'being right' is the answer. It's a business and we're running a little, ill respected and frequently ignored company whose managers continue to think that caring counts enough to change the world. It's no longer even a quaint or nice idea, it's an embarrassing naivety. It's why we are still waiting for old ladies to leave us their small fortunes instead of being taken seriously by global corporations. It's why we are still playing with nature reserves and Pandas instead of planning to make a real difference, now when we could, and so desperately need to.
> 
> And there's worse... Some of conservations 'big-boys' do actually have a little clout, and even more importantly they have rightfully earned respect, but because they are wrapped up in their new found game of politics, and all the compromises this sorry, silly game imposes they are increasingly pulling punches which should be launched and landed to make maximum impact. They can't do A because it will have a knock on effect with B which means C will get set back. They've joined the liars game and they are playing at our and the planets expense. Nice. It's a power issue, the have a little but are too scared to use it, because then some of their new friends won't talk to them, and some of their sacred members might get a bit upset."


 

Someone else I hold in high esteem, critical of some of our conservation NGO's policies >> Why are Britain's conservation groups so lacking in ambition? | George Monbiot | Environment | theguardian.com

I suspect many grass roots conservationists are critical of many of the NGO's policies, but I'm pretty sure they're not foolish enough to believe nature would be better off without them, they just hope for change & improvement.



Goblin said:


> Oh look, NOT A GENERAL KILL ORDER (yes I can also colour and make large letters), only nests can be removed where they are a HEALTH AND SAFETY issue and without a license to do so.
> 
> You always have to go OTT
> 
> Nest can be destroyed, even if they contain eggs! chicks? no monitoring, no nothing ! But you'll defend the govt whatever they do, your NHS thread is proof of that lol. Me, I'm just another shameful cynic i'm afraid, I do not trust these charlatans not one iota, because all their environmental polices are reckless & destructive.
> 
> _
> 
> Other people, fortunately, didn't, among them Tom Pride, who took a stick and poked the Natural England ant hill a bit and took a look at what came out. He didn't find much evidence in its report about the threat supposedly posed by rampant robins et al but he did find that the organisation's chair, appointed last year, is chartered accountant and venture capitalist Andrew Sells. He has been the chair of Wyevale Garden Centres and a trustee of the Royal Horticultural Society, which is certainly adjacent to active experience in the ecological, environmental and/or conservation field. He is also a substantial Tory party donor and the founder of a property company that develops brownfield sites, which he sold a few years ago. Property developers rank highly in the lists of Tory party donors, of course. They're a sociable group. They like to stick together.
> 
> So perhaps the removal of some of the wildlife protections that most often delay and cut into the profits of developers is not so odd after all. Or perhaps those of us outside the charmed circle of Natural England are just shameful cynics flocking together like starlings and filling the air with senseless chatter as we wheel across an innocent sky.
> 
> Maybe Natural England is fighting the good fight, trying to break Big Robin and the monopoly it has built up over the Christmas card market. Maybe it's had a tipoff that starlings are the most likely carriers of an avian flu mutation that can jump the species barrier to humans and are trying to save us without scaring us. But my instincts - especially if I rename them "educated inferences" - say otherwise.
> 
> They say, once again, that the world we share with our politicians is organised for their convenience, and anything and anyone that gets in the way may be dashed to the ground without mercy. We're all eggshell underfoot_.
> 
> 
> 
> Concern over planes carrying people - Wonder why. Maybe it's HEALTH AND SAFETY of people who are at risk of
> 
> [youtube_browser]reKOiiwCU80[/youtube_browser]
> 
> Wouldn't of worked out nicely for the bird(s) in question either. This from a company who are also known to use falconry to scare birds away from some airfields.
> 
> When it comes down to it, mankind and animals do interfere with each other. What takes priority. According to some, it's animals but I doubt if they live "at one with nature" with no impact either. Then again I suppose that's the conservative's fault too.


Theres more to the gull story than meets the eye - not that you'd believe it of course Legal challenge to controversial herring gull cull dismissed by judge | Environment | The Guardian

Quoting a great comment after the article >

_
The RSPB is not only right, but there is clear evidence with this, with Natural England's plan to allow the removal of Robin's nests along with Pied Wagtail's and Starling's nest if they are deemed to be a health hazard. 
There is a most definite trend to see wildlife and natural habitat as disposable if it gets in our way. You only have to think of the changes to the planning law, and biodiversity offsetting, which would allow irreplaceable Ancient Woodland to be developed.

This is such a profound change to how conservation was seen before, and the late Great Derek Ratcliffe must be turning in his grave. Derek Ratcliffe single handedly wrote our whole conservation strategy as the government's Chief Scientist at the NCC. He was so single minded in his pursuit of this that he hugely angered the previous Tory administration. So much did it get up their nose, because it stopped this agenda we see now, that days after Derek Ratcliffe retired they split up the NCC to neuter it, hence why were now have the toothless and sycophantic Natural England instead, the obedient servant of its Tory masters._

No ecologist in the last 50 years made such a contribution to both natural history and conservation science as Derek Ratcliffe, who has died, aged 75, on his way to the Arctic circle. An expert ornithologist and botanist, he set in place the philosophy and scientific guidance that underpins nature conservation in Britain with the creation of the so-called Ratcliffe nature conservation criteria to compare sites.

The two-volume Nature Conservation Review (1977), which he edited and largely wrote, became known as the modern doomsday book on nature. He also discovered how DDT was implicated in the egg-shell thinning process in birds of prey, paving the way for the ban on its use within the European Union. ...

He railed against the commercial afforestation of large tracts of the wild uplands, ultimately mobilising the NCC (chaired by Sir William Wilkinson) to convince government to halt the widespread forestry operations that had been made possible through a system of tax breaks. Such was the political unpopularity of his efforts that, just a few days after Derek's retirement in 1989, the Conservative environment secretary Nicholas Ridley announced the dismemberment of the NCC, leading to Britain's present-day nature conservation agencies.
Obituary: Derek Ratcliffe | Society | The Guardian

_Owen Paterson the current Environment Secretary is married to the daughter of Nicholas Ridley's brother. Which just shows how nepotism is alive and kicking in the Tory party. We face the same threat from the same ideologues, but we lack a great figure such as Derek Ratcliffe to oppose him.

The influence of the studious Derek Ratcliffe was unbelievable. His Nature Review formed a template for conservation all around the world. His work on egg shell thinning caused by DDT was what underpinned Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which is widely believed to have given rise to modern environmentalism. In other words there is one single quite figure who was behind both modern environmentalism, and the modern conservation approach, globally, and that man was Derek Ratcliffe. Yet for such a great and massively influential scientist, he was badly treated by the British establishment. He was never given a single government honour, despite being a long time senior civil servant, and one of the most influential scientists in the world._

_I say this not just to honour Derek Ratcliffe, but to illustrate how deeply entrenched this Tory attitude to the environment is, even amongst establishment figures that aren't apparently political._

Justice Mitting, sitting in London, ruled the claims "unfounded", dismissed the RSPB's application for judicial review and ordered it to pay £10,000 in legal costs.

_This is establishment sophistry to justify this Tory agenda. The RSPB is self-evidently objectively right, but the establishment want to pursue this agenda come what may. 
I invoked the name of Derek Ratcliffe, because this is what we lack, a figure of unimpeachable integrity and expertise to take on those with this anti-environmental agenda._

They mention Rachel Carson, whos birthday is celebrated on google today, her book 'Silent Spring' is as relevant today as ever - and of course to this thread.

* "One way to open your eyes is to ask yourself, "What if I had never seen this before? What if I knew i would never see it again?" 
― Rachel Carson *

._* Until we have the courage to recognize cruelty for what it is -- whether its victim is human or animal -- we cannot expect things to be much better in this world. We cannot have peace among men whose hearts delight in killing any living creature. By every act that glorifies or even tolerates such moronic delight in killing, we set back the progress of humanity." 
- Rachel Carson *_

* "The human race is challenged more than ever before to demonstrate our mastery, not over nature but of ourselves." 
― Rachel Carson *

*"The question is whether any civilization can wage relentless war on life without destroying itself, and without losing the right to be called civilized." 
― Rachel Carson *

* "The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us the less taste we shall have for the destruction of our race. Wonder and humility are wholesome emotions, and they do not exist side by side with a lust for destruction

- Rachel Carson *


----------



## rona

Nope..............why would I?


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> Nope..............why would I?


I'm not very good at guessing lol - what are you referring to then?


----------



## rona

They are allowing themselves to practice control by killing and others should not be able to

Minsmere: RSPB explains culling of its red deer - News - East Anglian Daily Times

RSPB accused of hypocrisy - Telegraph

Don't twist this around that I'm for the killing of any wildlife like you usually do cos it's not true. I just see things in a different way to you and most of the "conservationists" in this country.

Chris Packham summed it up for me, and I don't agree with all he says


----------



## Rafa

Magnus said:


> I've tried the leave it alone and it'll leave you alone approach and it doesn't work for me. I think they smell fear!
> We've had two wasps nests at our house in the last ten years or so and they've been very aggressive little blighters - so they became very hot and crispy.


I get why you wouldn't want a wasps' nest so close to you.

I don't get why you're so pumped and ready to brag about the fact that you burned them to death.

I had a wasps' nest in my garden last year. We held a bin liner under it, cut it off at the top, and took it out into the Country. We opened the bag and let the wasps out to sort it out for themselves.

I had to remove it because I feared for our old Staffy girl who would get her nose into everything.

Why do you get so much perverse pleasure from the fact that you burned those wasps to death?


----------



## rona

Sweety said:


> I get why you wouldn't want a wasps' nest so close to you.
> 
> I don't get why you're so pumped and ready to brag about the fact that you burned them to death.
> 
> I had a wasps' nest in my garden last year. We held a bin liner under it, cut it off at the top, and took it out into the Country. We opened the bag and let the wasps out to sort it out for themselves.
> 
> I had to remove it because I feared for our old Staffy girl who would get her nose into everything.
> 
> Why do you get so much perverse pleasure from the fact that you burned those wasps to death?


That's above and beyond :thumbsup:

Glad there are still people who care enough


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> You always have to go OTT


Pot and black comes to mind. 

Couple of key points with your cull link...


Case was dismissed... 
Limits have been set to try to minimize impact and ensure the survival of the breeds. Once again, not an open license.
Doesn't get over the fact the need to prevent bird strikes exists. What is your magic solution?

Your "support the conservatives no matter what" is laughable. I have never voted for the conservatives even when eligible to do so. I'm prepared to criticize them and any other party, not just focus on one. Badger cull for example is wrong. Education policies are wrong and I could go on. They are not unique there though. EU election here we voted for the equivalent of the Animal Welfare Party. Green party sold out long ago 

In general your bias is shown even in your sources such as that from a left wing newspaper. Neither have you discussed the whole central issue. When health and safety is involved, do birds have the priority? That's the core central issue.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> They are allowing themselves to practice control by killing and others should not be able to
> 
> Minsmere: RSPB explains culling of its red deer - News - East Anglian Daily Times
> 
> RSPB accused of hypocrisy - Telegraph
> 
> Don't twist this around that I'm for the killing of any wildlife like you usually do cos it's not true. I just see things in a different way to you and most of the "conservationists" in this country.
> 
> Chris Packham summed it up for me, and I don't agree with all he says


The RSPB are not against 'management' per se, they even say this about deer managemnent in your 1st link >> _The RSPB explained that deer control is a legal and widely undertaken part of countryside management, which it had determined to be the "only remaining option to  safeguard the integrity of the habitat".

Although the charity said it would continue to maintain red deer at the reserve, it explained that with no predators to control the population naturally, it was important to "strike a balance" so that the other habitats were also protected.
_

Isnt this what you also believe Rona? How does this translate to the RSPB being hypocritical

Going on your second link I wasn't far out was I?

The Countryside Alliance has the nerve to accuse the RSPB of hypocrisy Don't you see the difference between careful considered culling of a few animals(usually as a last resort after humane deterrents have failed) to protect rare & vulnerable species & the mass killing of wildlife (legally & illegally ) to protect millions of gamebirds bred to be blasted out of the sky??  One IS conservation(whether I agree with the methods or not) the other is the indiscriminate persecution of animals that interfere with businesses that profit from people shooting animals for 'sport'. I don't agree with all the RSPB policies myself, but in this instance I can see no hypocrisy.

The Telegraph story is nothing more than Countryside Alliance propaganda to discredit a charity that has dared to challenge their on going persecution of protected species. The CA would love nothing more than to see the RSPB crumble so they can carry on killing without scrutiny

Pretty sure you would put me straight if you believed I had twisted what you say lol - just as I would you, or anyone else for that matter.

Chris Packham has a very valid point, I wish more influential naturalists would challenge the NGO's that need challenging.



Goblin said:


> Pot and black comes to mind.
> 
> Couple of key points with your cull link...
> 
> 
> Case was dismissed...
> Limits have been set to try to minimize impact and ensure the survival of the breeds. Once again, not an open license.
> Doesn't get over the fact the need to prevent bird strikes exists. What is your magic solution?
> 
> Your "support the conservatives no matter what" is laughable. I have never voted for the conservatives even when eligible to do so. I'm prepared to criticize them and any other party, not just focus on one. Badger cull for example is wrong. Education policies are wrong and I could go on. They are not unique there though. EU election here we voted for the equivalent of the Animal Welfare Party. Green party sold out long ago
> 
> In general your bias is shown even in your sources such as that from a left wing newspaper. Neither have you discussed the whole central issue. When health and safety is involved, do birds have the priority? That's the core central issue
> 
> .


You are missing the point, the RSPB accepts the cull is necessary, this is about the govts on going erosion of legislation that once protected our natural heritage.

RSPB's Martin Harper > RSPB statement in response to judgment on its challenge to the Ribble Gull Cull decision - Martin Harper's blog - Our work - The RSPB Community

_This judgement is deeply worrying as we believe it fundamentally misinterprets the law as it relates to protecting birds. It is important to stress that the dispute at the centre of this case is not about air safety - the RSPB fully accepts the risk exists and that the cull is necessary, this is about how the Government can sanction the killing of an additional 1100 lesser black-backed gulls without acknowledging the damaging impact of removing almost a fifth of the breeding population of a species on a protected site. The judge appears to condone the Government writing off part of why the Ribble Estuary is important for nature conservation without compensation measures and, as such, sets a deeply disturbing precedent for our most important sites for wildlife - we are urgently looking at our options to appeal this judgment _

I read articles by newspaper columnists that are renowned for their well researched investigative journalism - The Times Jonathan Leake is another good example  I'm not interested in the Fail or the Telegraph, Rona's link is a prime example how they support the bloodsports brigade to further their propaganda.


----------



## Magnus

Sweety said:


> I get why you wouldn't want a wasps' nest so close to you.
> 
> I don't get why you're so pumped and ready to brag about the fact that you burned them to death.
> 
> I had a wasps' nest in my garden last year. We held a bin liner under it, cut it off at the top, and took it out into the Country. We opened the bag and let the wasps out to sort it out for themselves.
> 
> I had to remove it because I feared for our old Staffy girl who would get her nose into everything.
> 
> Why do you get so much perverse pleasure from the fact that you burned those wasps to death?


Oh FFS! "Pumped"...."Brag".... "Perverse pleasure"
Have a word with yourself. 

I burned a couple of wasps nests. It's not bragging, I'm not pumped (whatever that means) and as far as getting some perverted pleasure out of it, well it's not like I trapped half a dozen in an old cigar tube and rammed it up me Khyber is it?

They're horrible aggressive little stripy feckers and I would be delighted if they didn't exist.


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> the RSPB fully accepts the risk exists and that the cull is necessary


In plain letters.. not simply the conservative hit list you make it out to be.

As to making alternative areas available, that's another matter and one I could support. However that hasn't been your argument. You presented the case as an example of how BAE lobbied the conservatives to place birds on a kill list for no valid reason.


----------



## Rafa

Magnus said:


> I've tried the leave it alone and it'll leave you alone approach and it doesn't work for me. I think they smell fear!
> We've had two wasps nests at our house in the last ten years or so and they've been very aggressive little blighters - so they became very hot and crispy.


This. The last line of that post.

'Pumped' means full of your own importance and bragging about what you did.

You tell someone that you had to remove a wasps' nest, I don't think anyone would have a real issue with that.

You say "so they became very hot and crispy" is bragging about something you think is clever, in my opinion.

There is no virtue in torturing something, anything, to death.

Maybe you need to "Have a Word with Yourself".


----------



## Magnus

I think the "In my opinion" is the pertinent fact here; what you infer from what I have written says more about you than me. You have chosen to ignore the bit where I suggested I was scared of them - hardly boastful.

As for _full of your own importance_, I'd say that was a criticism better levelled at someone who sets themselves up as arbiter. Go and have that word.


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> In plain letters.. not simply the conservative hit list you make it out to be.
> 
> As to making alternative areas available, that's another matter and one I could support. However that hasn't been your argument. You presented the case as an example of how BAE lobbied the conservatives to place birds on a kill list for no valid reason.


My argument has been about the government systematically getting rid of all the 'green crap' > http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ameful-as-cleggs-on-tuition-fees-8954747.html

_ Tony Juniper; Our Government's obsession with growth at any cost cannot be permitted to destroy nature's final surviving crown jewels. Ministers are working in Brussels to weaken EU conservation laws; at home, they have slashed the budgets of official conservation bodies and are now looking for ways to smooth the path for development, even in special areas. _ The destruction of ancient woodland is non-negotiable, Mr Paterson - Comment - Voices - The Independent

The Ribble Estuary is an EU Marine protected area for birdlife. The cull will remove 20% of the UK breeding population of LBB gulls (a species already in serious decline) from this protected site. What hope is there for nature when even protected places are no longer safe havens for wildlife?

Even Maggie Thatcher got it >> *"No generation has a freehold on this Earth. All we have is a life tenancy -- with full repairing lease". *

.


----------



## Phoenix24

I'd like to just point out that the human population stands at over 7 billion and growing.

Human population growth has accounted for a loss of nearly 4 million square miles of rainforest globally (The nature conservancy)

94 millions hectares (2.4%) of total forests was lost during the 1990s, 70% of which were converted to agricultural land. Habitat loss account for 85% of the species on the IUCN Red list (WWF).

It is estimated that 3 species per hour are becoming extinct, largely attributed to human activity (Human Population Growth and Extinction)

Now someone tell me why it is more important to protect even a single human life in favour of a bird's nest? If we are so clever then we should have an answer other than 'humans are more important' or 'its only one nest' or any of the other ludicrous arguments I have seen presented on here rubbishing the blindingly obvious: Allow one man to remove one nest, and you allow 7 billion men to remove 7 billion nests. Because we all know that the point of this thread is not that the odd bird nest might be granted permission for removal, but that the granting of nest removal will not stop at a handful of nests.

Relaxing legislation is one step down a dangerous road, the sensible and 'legitimate' cause for removal of a nest will be abused or ignored, and soon people will think it is ok to remove 'just one nest' because it's in the way - how long before people are removing nests that pose no threat but are just considered 'annoying'? The biggest example I know of is people who think it is ok to remove house martin nests because for a few weeks there is a some poop in a pile underneath.

It is we humans that are invading the birds (and other species habitat). It is humans that are the pest. The nuisance. The real health hazard. What we do to the natural world endangers the lives of more than just a single or small group of individuals, it effects whole ecosystems, whole communities of species. You may not even think it, but cutting down a single oak tree destroys not just that one tree, but the homes of dozens of other vertebrates, hundreds of invertebrates, millions of micro-organisms and even other plants that lived on the tree. And an oak tree can live for 600-900 years, so the impact of losing that one tree is not just momentary, but leaves a legacy.

So it would be nice for people to just think a little bit more about what the long term effects of changing this legislation could mean. While today it might only mean a handful of nests are removed from potentially harmful locations (harmful to humans, that is), tomorrow it might mean some ill-judged attempt to remove a 'nuisance' nest such as a house martin, and somewhere down the line it could mean re-legalising egg collecting, or a hunting permit free-for-all.

Maybe that sounds sensationalist or something, but big things are born from small ideas.


----------



## Cleo38

Phoenix24 said:


> I'd like to just point out that the human population stands at over 7 billion and growing.
> 
> Human population growth has accounted for a loss of nearly 4 million square miles of rainforest globally (The nature conservancy)
> 
> 94 millions hectares (2.4%) of total forests was lost during the 1990s, 70% of which were converted to agricultural land. Habitat loss account for 85% of the species on the IUCN Red list (WWF).
> 
> It is estimated that 3 species per hour are becoming extinct, largely attributed to human activity (Human Population Growth and Extinction)
> 
> *Now someone tell me why it is more important to protect even a single human life in favour of a bird's nest? * If we are so clever then we should have an answer other than 'humans are more important' or 'its only one nest' or any of the other ludicrous arguments I have seen presented on here rubbishing the blindingly obvious: Allow one man to remove one nest, and you allow 7 billion men to remove 7 billion nests. Because we all know that the point of this thread is not that the odd bird nest might be granted permission for removal, but that the granting of nest removal will not stop at a handful of nests.
> 
> Relaxing legislation is one step down a dangerous road, the sensible and 'legitimate' cause for removal of a nest will be abused or ignored, and soon people will think it is ok to remove 'just one nest' because it's in the way - how long before people are removing nests that pose no threat but are just considered 'annoying'? The biggest example I know of is people who think it is ok to remove house martin nests because for a few weeks there is a some poop in a pile underneath.
> 
> It is we humans that are invading the birds (and other species habitat). It is humans that are the pest. The nuisance. The real health hazard. What we do to the natural world endangers the lives of more than just a single or small group of individuals, it effects whole ecosystems, whole communities of species. You may not even think it, but cutting down a single oak tree destroys not just that one tree, but the homes of dozens of other vertebrates, hundreds of invertebrates, millions of micro-organisms and even other plants that lived on the tree. And an oak tree can live for 600-900 years, so the impact of losing that one tree is not just momentary, but leaves a legacy.
> 
> So it would be nice for people to just think a little bit more about what the long term effects of changing this legislation could mean. While today it might only mean a handful of nests are removed from potentially harmful locations (harmful to humans, that is), tomorrow it might mean some ill-judged attempt to remove a 'nuisance' nest such as a house martin, and somewhere down the line it could mean re-legalising egg collecting, or a hunting permit free-for-all.
> 
> Maybe that sounds sensationalist or something, but big things are born from small ideas.


Really???!!! You wouldn't condsider your family or friends lives before that of an animal or even it's nest??? Funny as most animals would always put themselves (& their families) beofre other creatures. Birds destroy each others nests frequently, I watched this morning as a magpie (that is nesting in one of my trees) wrecked the nest of another magpie who was starting to build in another tree. Protecting it's chicks & ensuring the resources weren't shared probably.

Do you really think this legistlation will mean anything to most people, who probably (as you have given an example of) remove nests when ever they cause any incovenenice. This will (probably) make more of a difference to companies or businesses that have to follow the law or incurr big fines (as the company I work for) when carrying out certain types of work.

Sensationlist headlines such as these do not help for any cause as alot of people (as I did) read the artticle & realise it bears no relation to the screaming headline.

I do not want wildlife to be destroyed unnecessarily but in certain incidents it is necessary & this reflects that requirement


----------



## Phoenix24

Cleo38 said:


> Really???!!! You wouldn't condsider your family or friends lives before that of an animal or even it's nest??? Funny as most animals would always put themselves (& their families) beofre other creatures. Birds destroy each others nests frequently, I watched this morning as a magpie (that is nesting in one of my trees) wrecked the nest of another magpie who was starting to build in another tree. Protecting it's chicks & ensuring the resources weren't shared probably.
> 
> Do you really think this legistlation will mean anything to most people, who probably (as you have given an example of) remove nests when ever they cause any incovenenice. This will (probably) make more of a difference to companies or businesses that have to follow the law or incurr big fines (as the company I work for) when carrying out certain types of work.
> 
> Sensationlist headlines such as these do not help for any cause as alot of people (as I did) read the artticle & realise it bears no relation to the screaming headline.
> 
> I do not want wildlife to be destroyed unnecessarily but in certain incidents it is necessary & this reflects that requirement


YES, really.

We have the tools to find another way, a bird does not. A bird defends its nest out of instinct, because if it did not it would not pass on its genes to its offspring. A bird, unlike humans, cannot generally breed all year round. a loss of a single nest is a big loss to a bird. Of course it will do everything it can to protect it. Human beings are fortunate to not be in that same perilous position. So yes, damn right I would do everything I could to protect a birds nest because there is always another way.

I get sick and tired of the argument people like you use (the people who advocate animal testing for human medicine use the same tactic ie what would I rather, test on an animal or let my mum die of cancer? Answer: there is another way besides animal testing).

Of course you care about fines and legislation, because that inpacts on your job. But you are not being objective. You are clearly biased. You are worried that a birds nest might lose you your job. what you do not consider is that your job (and indeed most human activities) cost half the worlds species' their lives, and impact on the future of all species, including our own. If you care so much about your family, then care a little more about the impact you are having on the environment, because what's for sure is that at some point the damage we do will not be able to be undone.


----------



## Jesthar

Phoenix24 said:


> YES, really.
> 
> We have the tools to find another way, a bird does not. A bird defends its nest out of instinct, because if it did not it would not pass on its genes to its offspring. A bird, unlike humans, cannot generally breed all year round. a loss of a single nest is a big loss to a bird. Of course it will do everything it can to protect it. Human beings are fortunate to not be in that same perilous position. So yes, damn right I would do everything I could to protect a birds nest because there is always another way.
> 
> I get sick and tired of the argument *people like you *use (the people who advocate animal testing for human medicine use the same tactic ie what would I rather, test on an animal or let my mum die of cancer? Answer: there is another way besides animal testing).
> 
> Of course you care about fines and legislation, because that inpacts on your job. But you are not being objective. You are clearly biased. You are worried that a birds nest might lose you your job. what you do not consider is that your job (and indeed most human activities) cost half the worlds species' their lives, and impact on the future of all species, including our own. If you care so much about your family, then care a little more about the impact you are having on the environment, because what's for sure is that at some point the damage we do will not be able to be undone.


With respect, I think you misunderstood cleo's post and the type of person they are. They were pointing out that 1) the people who currently break the legislation (knowingly or unknowingly) won't care if it's tightened up OR relaxed, and 2) in certain curcumstances, a nest in the wrong place can cause a serious risk - which is why even now you can apply for permission to remove a nest that is presenting a danger.

For example, a number of cars have caught fire on Orkney in the last few weeks due to birds building a nest in the engine cavity - sometimes overnight! Now, I'm sure you're going to say 'use another method of transport until the chicks have fledged' - but can you at least accept that for some people that's just not going to be possible? My best friend is a wheelchair user with a Motability car and two children - perhaps she could just sit at home for a month if a bird picked her car to nest in? And a lorry driver or farmer doesn't have much of a choice about using their tractor or lorry, do they?

Yes, those are exceptional circumstances - but _that's_ the point cleo was trying to make. Unless you really would leave friends to die in a burning building if the one and only available fire hose happend to have birds nest in it, or are saying that if you got home to find your kitchen had been absolutely invaded by ants (as has happened to me more than once thanks to a dodgy patio that existed when I moved in and I have since gotten rid of), you would shrug and leave them be, not break out the Nippon?

And no, I don't agree that the existing legislation needs changing in this case, but the reality is that even those of us who really appreciate nature and want to do what we can to help it are _sometimes_ put in the position where there really is no feasible alternative to taking action. And to give Noush credit and appreciation, she has graciously acknowledged that throughout this thread, even if her wording is oft too sensationalist for my taste.


----------



## Phoenix24

Jesthar said:


> With respect, I think you misunderstood cleo's post and the type of person they are. They were pointing out that 1) the people who currently break the legislation (knowingly or unknowingly) won't care if it's tightened up OR relaxed, and 2) in certain curcumstances, a nest in the wrong place can cause a serious risk - which is why even now you can apply for permission to remove a nest that is presenting a danger.
> 
> For example, a number of cars have caught fire on Orkney in the last few weeks due to birds building a nest in the engine cavity - sometimes overnight! Now, I'm sure you're going to say 'use another method of transport until the chicks have fledged' - but can you at least accept that for some people that's just not going to be possible? My best friend is a wheelchair user with a Motability car and two children - perhaps she could just sit at home for a month if a bird picked her car to nest in? And a lorry driver or farmer doesn't have much of a choice about using their tractor or lorry, do they?
> 
> Yes, those are exceptional circumstances - but _that's_ the point cleo was trying to make. Unless you really would leave friends to die in a burning building if the one and only available fire hose happend to have birds nest in it, or are saying that if you got home to find your kitchen had been absolutely invaded by ants (as has happened to me more than once thanks to a dodgy patio that existed when I moved in and I have since gotten rid of), you would shrug and leave them be, not break out the Nippon?
> 
> And no, I don't agree that the existing legislation needs changing in this case, but the reality is that even those of us who really appreciate nature and want to do what we can to help it are _sometimes_ put in the position where there really is no feasible alternative to taking action. And to give Noush credit and appreciation, she has graciously acknowledged that throughout this thread, even if her wording is oft too sensationalist for my taste.


I appreciate your points, Jesthar, and your are right people who ignore the rules won't give a jot about the legislation being relaxed or tightened, however the problem can come from those who are more on the borderline - ie the mostly ordinary decent people who perhaps don't think what they are doing is wrong, and misinterpret the rules, or think its ok to just bend them just this once... And of course big industries who are determined to find a way to bend the rules because they want to make money.

I will go back to my original point that human beings have so destroyed the landscape that birds searching for a place to nest will pick unsuitable alternatives, such as car engines (enterprising as they are) - as there isn't a better option. In my experience this has usually been old vehicles that clearly aren't in use, and as good as birds are it normally takes about a week to build a nest (not overnight - the birds we are talking about are not nocturnal!), and a further week to lay in it. That's a two week window of activity that should alert a car owner that something is going on in the engine space, don't you think? And if a vehicle is under such heavy use on a farm i'm fairly sure it wouldn't sit around long enough for a bird to build a nest. Maybe there are some cases where it does though.

With no disrespect to your friend in a wheelchair who has children: The birds who make that nest in the car has offspring in that nest. It is almost impossible for some people to conceive the idea that a few weeks inconvenience in exchange for the lives of another species is the right thing to do. I completely understand, of course, i'm not a total hypocrite - I am a human being too that gets on with my life just like everyone else, I just think it is sad that being the supposedly clever, moral and superior beings that we are that we cannot even imagine another way around the problem.

Noushka has done a fine job of presenting the topic and argument on here, presenting factual references to balance out the emotion. There is nothing wrong with a bit of sensationalism, we use it all the time to being attention to something we care about and here it is no different. Clearly most of us on this forum are animal lovers to some degree, but clearly not all of us on this forum are concerned with much more than just the welfare of our own pets and our own interests. But that is the unfortunate situation we are all in because that is the way the world is, and that is the world that we have to live in. I can only hope that at some point soon something changes before it is too late.


----------



## alan g a

By indiscriminately killing wildlife man kind is killing itself and the planet. Nature is delicate balance, tip the scale too far one way and everything fails. Animals kill for survival, man doesn't have to. Sure I would protect my family, but I wouldn't kill anything that wasn't a direct threat.


----------



## Cleo38

Phoenix24 said:


> YES, really.
> 
> We have the tools to find another way, a bird does not. A bird defends its nest out of instinct, because if it did not it would not pass on its genes to its offspring. A bird, unlike humans, cannot generally breed all year round. a loss of a single nest is a big loss to a bird. Of course it will do everything it can to protect it. Human beings are fortunate to not be in that same perilous position. So yes, damn right I would do everything I could to protect a birds nest because there is always another way.
> 
> I get sick and tired of the argument people like you use (the people who advocate animal testing for human medicine use the same tactic ie what would I rather, test on an animal or let my mum die of cancer? Answer: there is another way besides animal testing).
> 
> Of course you care about fines and legislation, because that inpacts on your job. But you are not being objective. You are clearly biased. You are worried that a birds nest might lose you your job. what you do not consider is that your job (and indeed most human activities) cost half the worlds species' their lives, and impact on the future of all species, including our own. If you care so much about your family, then care a little more about the impact you are having on the environment, because what's for sure is that at some point the damage we do will not be able to be undone.


Your friends & family must be chuffed to bit to think you care so much 

As for animal testing that is a completely different argument - many scientists, doctors & researchers seem to think there are no other ways to find cures for terminal diseases & I agree, if you don't that is your opinion .... however misguided it may be.

How can you argue I cannot be objective because of my job? It has nothing to do with my job at all, I personally wouldn't lose my job over my company flouting environmental laws but that doesn't mean I can't understand what is involved in them or the consequences to our projects or the local wildlife.

It does make me laugh when I hear people constantly saying 'there are other ways' without actually giving examples, it's very easy to do that. At times there are no other ways, especially if the H&S of employees is at stake as was the case on one of the sites I worked on. We did get authority to cut back a hedgerow despite birds starting to nest, so the operatives could gain access to a filter bed which was in need of maintenance. If the operative could not walk along this path they would have had to have waded through sewage which is unacceptable to them, if the bed had not have been cleaned then the works would have started to fail which would have meant a far greater environmental impact.


----------



## Jesthar

Phoenix24 said:


> I will go back to my original point that human beings have so destroyed the landscape that birds searching for a place to nest will pick unsuitable alternatives, such as car engines (enterprising as they are) - as there isn't a better option. In my experience this has usually been old vehicles that clearly aren't in use, and as good as birds are it normally takes about a week to build a nest (not overnight - the birds we are talking about are not nocturnal!), and a further week to lay in it. That's a two week window of activity that should alert a car owner that something is going on in the engine space, don't you think? And if a vehicle is under such heavy use on a farm i'm fairly sure it wouldn't sit around long enough for a bird to build a nest. Maybe there are some cases where it does though.


According to the news reports on the Orkney car fires, at one of the nests (or enough of one to start a fire) was indeed built over the course of an evening. That's not so surprising when you consider how long an evening IS on Orkney at this time of year - sunset doesn't happen till around 10pm at the moment. And a quick google turns up any number of stories about birds nesting in tractors and lorries, and even causing similar fires. As to spotting the birds, well if you get lucky and see them arriving or leaving, I guess. But I only see my car when I'm about to use it (no windows overlooking my parking place at home or work), which is a very slim window of opportunity, and I suspect a lot of other people are the same. 



Phoenix24 said:


> With no disrespect to your friend in a wheelchair who has children: The birds who make that nest in the car has offspring in that nest. It is almost impossible for some people to conceive the idea that *a few weeks inconvenience* in exchange for the lives of another species is the right thing to do. I completely understand, of course, i'm not a total hypocrite - I am a human being too that gets on with my life just like everyone else, I just think it is sad that being the supposedly clever, moral and superior beings that we are that we cannot even imagine another way around the problem.


With no disrespect to you, not using your lawnmower for a couple of months because birds had nested in the grass box would be an 'inconvenience' (possibly a welcome one ). Losing your only practical mode of transport for a month or two would go rather beyond that, wouldn't you admit, especially when you can't afford to take taxis and you can't hire a replacement car because yours is specially adapted to your medical condition?

And yes, that is an extreme example. But that's what we are talking about, the times when there are _genuinely_ no alternatives to moving a nest - that's why there's a permit system in place now.


----------



## Cleo38

Jesthar said:


> According to the news reports on the Orkney car fires, at one of the nests (or enough of one to start a fire) was indeed built over the course of an evening. That's not so surprising when you consider how long an evening IS on Orkney at this time of year - sunset doesn't happen till around 10pm at the moment. And a quick google turns up any number of stories about birds nesting in tractors and lorries, and even causing similar fires. As to spotting the birds, well if you get lucky and see them arriving or leaving, I guess. But I only see my car when I'm about to use it (no windows overlooking my parking place at home or work), which is a very slim window of opportunity, and I suspect a lot of other people are the same.
> 
> With no disrespect to you, not using your lawnmower for a couple of months because birds had nested in the grass box would be an 'inconvenience' (possibly a welcome one ). Losing your only practical mode of transport for a month or two would go rather beyond that, wouldn't you admit, especially when you can't afford to take taxis and you can't hire a replacement car because yours is specially adapted to your medical condition?
> 
> And yes, that is an extreme example. But that's what we are talking about, the times when there are _genuinely_ no alternatives to moving a nest - that's why there's a permit system in place now.


I honestly don't think some people will appreciate just how much inconvenience's are for others 

Certain situations are manageable as you say not using a lawnmower for while is such an easy sacrifice & one most of us would gladly do, not using a car is just not an option for some people. I couldn't live without my car as there is no public transport where I live, I can't imagine my company would be too pleased for me to ring in & say I couldn't come in for the next few weeks due to birds!

Regarding building nests, they can happen within a very short pace of time. One of our sites had a blue tit build a next over the weekend in one of the excavators so a new one had to be bought in, not a great inconvenience but again an added to cost to (abet small) to a project, was it the right thing to do? In this case, yes I do as an alternative was able to be sourced quickly & relatively easily.

As for my rat problem, for 6mths I had been trying alternatives but these were not working & the rat population growing. I actually like rats & if they hadn't have been causing a problem for my chickens would have left them alone ..... but they were causing a problem for 2 of my older chooks & were starting to cost me a lot of money in feed .... what should I have done? Got a second job to afford the extra food, maybe given up work so I could supervise the hens, maybe taken out a loan I couldn't afford so I could spend £££'s on re-fencing & enclosing the area? ..... there were no options left apart from killing them IMO .... & it wasn't the 'easy' option at all


----------



## Phoenix24

Cleo, I do apologise for the wording of my original response to you (writing a response to a debate topic whilst running out the door to work is clearly not a great idea) but I do no apologise for my opinion.

To imply that I do not care for my friends and family is ridiculous, and insulting. Are you suggesting that anyone who cares for animal rights and conservation and wishes/hopes for changes to the current situation does not care for their friends and family? I'm sure you don't think that at all. Similarly, though I have stated several times that I feel that a few weeks of inconvenience for the sake of a birds nest would be the 'right' thing, I have also stated that I also completely understand that people have to live their lives and I don't for one moment expect people to give up their livelihood when a bird nests 'overnight' in their car engine. My point was simply that I find it sad that with the way the world is, and the way that people are and think, that other 'solutions' are generally not considered (because people still have to get to work etc), and that there are so few natural nesting sites because of human encroachment that birds (and other creatures) build their nesting sites in places we deem unsuitable, leading to the awful choice of whether or not to remove the nest.

Just because I haven't listed alternative solutions does not mean there are no alternatives, but rather that perhaps I do not have all the answers at my fingertips. And just because a solution has not been thought up yet by me does not mean that someone else hasn't, and even if they haven't yet either does not mean there is no other solution. Technology and knowledge is ever growing and evolving - what we know and have today may not have existed 100 years ago, or even 10 years ago, and what we don't have today we may do in 100 or even only 10 years from now.

Calling my viewpoint on animal testing misguided is in itself misguided. Being a scientist who has worked in laboratories with cancer researchers, I know that there are alternatives to animal testing. Nowadays researchers use cell cultures, tissue cultures, computer simulations. Animal physiology is widely accepted to be different enough from our own to still warrant human trials before drug release, and I and other anti-animal testing persons merely want the animal testing stage to be cut out. After all, a drug for human use really should be tested on humans, and many people with terminal illnesses are only too glad to become part of drugs trials in any small hope it might help them, or else help others from the results. I am incredibly grateful for the work of scientists gone by for the wonders of modern medicine, but it is about time that the new methods of research are fully embraced and the old ones ditched. After all, no one wants to see cosmetics testing on animals - and if the cosmetics industry can change, why not medical research...?

Jesthar, I did not once say it was impossible for a bird to build its nest so quickly (and yes, I completely forgot about places with near 24 hours of daylight ), just unusual, and I guess sometimes I forget that other people are not so observant of birds nesting behaviours as I (I am a nest recorder after all). I did read an article once of a cat who curled up in a car engine for a cosy nap, but can't remember if it was saved or the car exploded or not. Not that i'm advocating all cats being banned from going near cars or anything 

Having no car for a week to get to work was a total nightmare, because there was no public transport to there and I work unsociable hours. Thankfully I was able to get a lift from my mum, but at a push a taxi would have to do. Not a fabulous alternative for someone in a wheelchair I know - though I do remember one chap in a wheelchair who got the same bus as I did - he obviously didn't have a specially adapted car - and plenty of mums with kids on the bus. I'm not saying your friend should have to deal with wheelchair and kids on a bus or in a taxi, i'm just saying its not like there isn't an alternative as not everyone is so lucky to have their own car - wheelchair users or not.

This argument has got side tracked from the core, so I fill just finish by picking up on your last point, Jesthar:



Jesthar said:


> And yes, that is an extreme example. But that's what we are talking about, the times when there are _genuinely_ no alternatives to moving a nest - that's why there's a permit system in place now.


Alas, the whole point of this thread is that Natural England are talking about making it easier for nests to be removed. In other words, they are talking about changing legislation so that you do not need to apply for a permit to remove a nest.

Removing the permit system is the problem here, as many have already argued what's to say it doesn't stop there - how long before the legislation gets abused, and how long before other legislation is relaxed? Is this all to make it easier for the countryside to be developed (after all, there have been other changes to planning to allow it easier for developers to build, what's to say this isn't another one?) or is it genuinely to simply make it easier for the ever expanding health and safety culture to march onwards? Yes we don't want buildings burning down or cars exploding, but it seems to me that this will only make it easier for developers to get rid of a birds nest on a site because it is in the way (not causing any danger), which is not what the relaxing of the legislation is meant to be about (or is it?) - but this is how it may well be abused.

And this was my point all along, before getting sidetracked onto whether or not I cared about my family over a birds nest  (not that the use of the eye rolling smiley makes my comments any more clever or right, you understand ). These thoughts are simply my opinion, to which I am entitled, and does not mean I am some mad crazy activist hell bent on banning cars or burning down laboratories or something . Not that i'm saying all activists do this of course, just the mad crazy ones


----------



## noushka05

Jesthar said:


> With respect, I think you misunderstood cleo's post and the type of person they are. They were pointing out that 1) the people who currently break the legislation (knowingly or unknowingly) won't care if it's tightened up OR relaxed, and 2) in certain curcumstances, a nest in the wrong place can cause a serious risk - which is why even now you can apply for permission to remove a nest that is presenting a danger.
> 
> For example, a number of cars have caught fire on Orkney in the last few weeks due to birds building a nest in the engine cavity - sometimes overnight! Now, I'm sure you're going to say 'use another method of transport until the chicks have fledged' - but can you at least accept that for some people that's just not going to be possible? My best friend is a wheelchair user with a Motability car and two children - perhaps she could just sit at home for a month if a bird picked her car to nest in? And a lorry driver or farmer doesn't have much of a choice about using their tractor or lorry, do they?
> 
> Yes, those are exceptional circumstances - but _that's_ the point cleo was trying to make. Unless you really would leave friends to die in a burning building if the one and only available fire hose happend to have birds nest in it, or are saying that if you got home to find your kitchen had been absolutely invaded by ants (as has happened to me more than once thanks to a dodgy patio that existed when I moved in and I have since gotten rid of), you would shrug and leave them be, not break out the Nippon?
> 
> And no, I don't agree that the existing legislation needs changing in this case, but the reality is that even those of us who really appreciate nature and want to do what we can to help it are _sometimes_ put in the position where there really is no feasible alternative to taking action. And to give Noush credit and appreciation, she has graciously acknowledged that throughout this thread, even if her wording is oft too sensationalist for my taste.


Too sensationalist? :shocked: - surely you mean passionate?? lol

Genuine health hazards are rare, the existing laws are more than adequate, to relax them for a handful of incidence is beyond reckless. Most members of society wont be hoodwinked by this 'health hazard' garbage. The govt has remodelled NE from an environment protection agency to an agency there to serve business, industry & lobby groups.

Alans posts are bang on. We live on a finite planet, we have to start putting nature 1st before its too late - & if we leave it any longer it will be too late - & that's not me being sensationalist, that is a fact.



alan g a said:


> Every living thing is a potential health hazard, including man. Why not just kill everything?
> It is sad that many people seem to think that life on earth belongs to them and they can just do what they like with it, without regard to the possible consequences. Many creatures can be a threat to man, but none are as big a threat as man is to himself and the planet.





alan g a said:


> By indiscriminately killing wildlife man kind is killing itself and the planet. Nature is delicate balance, tip the scale too far one way and everything fails. Animals kill for survival, man doesn't have to. Sure I would protect my family, but I wouldn't kill anything that wasn't a direct threat.





Phoenix24 said:


> I appreciate your points, Jesthar, and your are right people who ignore the rules won't give a jot about the legislation being relaxed or tightened, however the problem can come from those who are more on the borderline - ie the mostly ordinary decent people who perhaps don't think what they are doing is wrong, and misinterpret the rules, or think its ok to just bend them just this once... And of course big industries who are determined to find a way to bend the rules because they want to make money.
> 
> I will go back to my original point that human beings have so destroyed the landscape that birds searching for a place to nest will pick unsuitable alternatives, such as car engines (enterprising as they are) - as there isn't a better option. In my experience this has usually been old vehicles that clearly aren't in use, and as good as birds are it normally takes about a week to build a nest (not overnight - the birds we are talking about are not nocturnal!), and a further week to lay in it. That's a two week window of activity that should alert a car owner that something is going on in the engine space, don't you think? And if a vehicle is under such heavy use on a farm i'm fairly sure it wouldn't sit around long enough for a bird to build a nest. Maybe there are some cases where it does though.
> 
> With no disrespect to your friend in a wheelchair who has children: The birds who make that nest in the car has offspring in that nest. It is almost impossible for some people to conceive the idea that a few weeks inconvenience in exchange for the lives of another species is the right thing to do. I completely understand, of course, i'm not a total hypocrite - I am a human being too that gets on with my life just like everyone else, I just think it is sad that being the supposedly clever, moral and superior beings that we are that we cannot even imagine another way around the problem.
> 
> Noushka has done a fine job of presenting the topic and argument on here, presenting factual references to balance out the emotion. There is nothing wrong with a bit of sensationalism, we use it all the time to being attention to something we care about and here it is no different. Clearly most of us on this forum are animal lovers to some degree, but clearly not all of us on this forum are concerned with much more than just the welfare of our own pets and our own interests. But that is the unfortunate situation we are all in because that is the way the world is, and that is the world that we have to live in. I can only hope that at some point soon something changes before it is too late.


Thank you very much. I think its been a good debate & your contributions have been excellent


----------



## Cleo38

Phoenix24 said:


> Cleo, I do apologise for the wording of my original response to you (writing a response to a debate topic whilst running out the door to work is clearly not a great idea) but I do no apologise for my opinion.
> 
> To imply that I do not care for my friends and family is ridiculous, and insulting.[Are you suggesting that anyone who cares for animal rights and conservation and wishes/hopes for changes to the current situation does not care for their friends and family
> 
> I'm sure you don't think that at all. Similarly, though I have stated several times that I feel that a few weeks of inconvenience for the sake of a birds nest would be the 'right' thing, I have also stated that I also completely understand that people have to live their lives and I don't for one moment expect people to give up their livelihood when a bird nests 'overnight' in their car engine. My point was simply that I find it sad that with the way the world is, and the way that people are and think, that other 'solutions' are generally not considered (because people still have to get to work etc), and that there are so few natural nesting sites because of human encroachment that birds (and other creatures) build their nesting sites in places we deem unsuitable, leading to the awful choice of whether or not to remove the nest.
> 
> Just because I haven't listed alternative solutions does not mean there are no alternatives, but rather that perhaps I do not have all the answers at my fingertips. And just because a solution has not been thought up yet by me does not mean that someone else hasn't, and even if they haven't yet either does not mean there is no other solution. Technology and knowledge is ever growing and evolving - what we know and have today may not have existed 100 years ago, or even 10 years ago, and what we don't have today we may do in 100 or even only 10 years from now.
> 
> Calling my viewpoint on animal testing misguided is in itself misguided. Being a scientist who has worked in laboratories with cancer researchers, I know that there are alternatives to animal testing. Nowadays researchers use cell cultures, tissue cultures, computer simulations. Animal physiology is widely accepted to be different enough from our own to still warrant human trials before drug release, and I and other anti-animal testing persons merely want the animal testing stage to be cut out. After all, a drug for human use really should be tested on humans, and many people with terminal illnesses are only too glad to become part of drugs trials in any small hope it might help them, or else help others from the results. I am incredibly grateful for the work of scientists gone by for the wonders of modern medicine, but it is about time that the new methods of research are fully embraced and the old ones ditched. After all, no one wants to see cosmetics testing on animals - and if the cosmetics industry can change, why not medical research...?
> 
> Jesthar, I did not once say it was impossible for a bird to build its nest so quickly (and yes, I completely forgot about places with near 24 hours of daylight ), just unusual, and I guess sometimes I forget that other people are not so observant of birds nesting behaviours as I (I am a nest recorder after all). I did read an article once of a cat who curled up in a car engine for a cosy nap, but can't remember if it was saved or the car exploded or not. Not that i'm advocating all cats being banned from going near cars or anything
> 
> Having no car for a week to get to work was a total nightmare, because there was no public transport to there and I work unsociable hours. Thankfully I was able to get a lift from my mum, but at a push a taxi would have to do. Not a fabulous alternative for someone in a wheelchair I know - though I do remember one chap in a wheelchair who got the same bus as I did - he obviously didn't have a specially adapted car - and plenty of mums with kids on the bus. I'm not saying your friend should have to deal with wheelchair and kids on a bus or in a taxi, i'm just saying its not like there isn't an alternative as not everyone is so lucky to have their own car - wheelchair users or not.
> 
> This argument has got side tracked from the core, so I fill just finish by picking up on your last point, Jesthar:
> 
> *
> Alas, the whole point of this thread is that Natural England are talking about making it easier for nests to be removed. In other words, they are talking about changing legislation so that you do not need to apply for a permit to remove a nest. *
> 
> Removing the permit system is the problem here, as many have already argued what's to say it doesn't stop there - how long before the legislation gets abused, and how long before other legislation is relaxed? Is this all to make it easier for the countryside to be developed (after all, there have been other changes to planning to allow it easier for developers to build, what's to say this isn't another one?) or is it genuinely to simply make it easier for the ever expanding health and safety culture to march onwards? Yes we don't want buildings burning down or cars exploding, but it seems to me that this will only make it easier for developers to get rid of a birds nest on a site because it is in the way (not causing any danger), which is not what the relaxing of the legislation is meant to be about (or is it?) - but this is how it may well be abused.
> 
> And this was my point all along, before getting sidetracked onto whether or not I cared about my family over a birds nest  (not that the use of the eye rolling smiley makes my comments any more clever or right, you understand ). These thoughts are simply my opinion, to which I am entitled, and does not mean I am some mad crazy activist hell bent on banning cars or burning down laboratories or something . Not that i'm saying all activists do this of course, just the mad crazy ones


You bought up the debate regarding animals research & it is not something I wanted to derail the thread about. Yes I do think many people who ae against usin anoimals in research are misguided, there has been many drebates on here,; same old examples trotted out , same old misquotes, etc. Personally, although I may not like the idea I belive it's necessary.

I also can't understand why people are using such sensationalism regarding a change because of things that MIGHT happen as a consequence 

Many people wouldn't give a stuff (unfortunately)about removing a birds nest if it was in their way & certainly wouldn't apply for a permit. I realy do not think this will have much of an imapct at all so why all the hysteria I really don't know.

If a nest was interferring with my property (house/car, etc) & there was no other solution, yes I would move it. I can't understand how you think that everyone has options, they don't & some just aren't viable for everyone. It may not be ideal but necessary at times .... not a mass destruction of nests for fun but the removal of those that are causing problems .... which probably won't be many anyway!


----------



## noushka05

Cleo38 said:


> You bought up the debate regarding animals research & it is not something I wanted to derail the thread about. Yes I do think many people who ae against usin anoimals in research are misguided, there has been many drebates on here,; same old examples trotted out , same old misquotes, etc. Personally, although I may not like the idea I belive it's necessary.
> 
> I also can't understand why people are using such sensationalism regarding a change because of things that MIGHT happen as a consequence
> 
> Many people wouldn't give a stuff (unfortunately)about removing a birds nest if it was in their way & certainly wouldn't apply for a permit. I realy do not think this will have much of an imapct at all so why all the hysteria I really don't know.
> 
> If a nest was interferring with my property (house/car, etc) & there was no other solution, yes I would move it. I can't understand how you think that everyone has options, they don't & some just aren't viable for everyone. It may not be ideal but necessary at times .... not a mass destruction of nests for fun but the removal of those that are causing problems .... which probably won't be many anyway!


The 'hysteria' is because Natural England is a national disgrace - aiding and abetting gamekeepers kill more buzzards the latest scandal >>

The RSPB: News: Application received to shoot 10 buzzards to protect pheasant shoot


----------



## alan g a

Instead of destroying nests, you can always do something to prevent them from being built where they are not wanted. EG. Cover the car, put mesh over guttering etc. Destroying a nest, particularly one containing eggs/chicks, is no better the killing the adults.


----------



## Blitz

I have only read a very few of the replies and tbh not sure what the whole thing is about but I would like to say that we have to constantly move nests from cars - it is a nightmare and every year there are cars burnt out. Once a bird decides to nest somewhere it will keep it up. We had one get into the tack room and we removed several nests as every time the door opened it sneaked back in and built a new one within a couple of hours. It took a a week or two before it gave up. Apart from the door it is totally bird proof - but not quite wren proof and we have had a wren rear babies in there. Very funny one year, she built her nest in the coils of a lunge rein right in the entrance to where the harness is kept. We ended up tip toeing by her every day but she seemed totally unbothered. That is very different though to having bigger birds that wreck our possessions and cost us money and a lot of work.

We are also over run with starlings. Flocks of hundreds of them literally plaster everything in bird poo. Sometimes the cattle and their silage are totally white in the morning, it is disgusting. My horses are liberally covered and any rugs left in the stables are white splodges.

I cant understand why anyone would think it ok not to mow their grass because there is a nest in the lawnmower.


----------



## Cleo38

Blitz said:


> I have only read a very few of the replies and tbh not sure what the whole thing is about but I would like to say that we have to constantly move nests from cars - it is a nightmare and every year there are cars burnt out. Once a bird decides to nest somewhere it will keep it up. We had one get into the tack room and we removed several nests as every time the door opened it sneaked back in and built a new one within a couple of hours. It took a a week or two before it gave up. Apart from the door it is totally bird proof - but not quite wren proof and we have had a wren rear babies in there. Very funny one year, she built her nest in the coils of a lunge rein right in the entrance to where the harness is kept. We ended up tip toeing by her every day but she seemed totally unbothered. That is very different though to having bigger birds that wreck our possessions and cost us money and a lot of work.
> 
> *We are also over run with starlings*. Flocks of hundreds of them literally plaster everything in bird poo. Sometimes the cattle and their silage are totally white in the morning, it is disgusting. My horses are liberally covered and any rugs left in the stables are white splodges.
> 
> I cant understand why anyone would think it ok not to mow their grass because there is a nest in the lawnmower.


Me too! I love starlings & find them fascinating to watch but again it got to the stage where they were bullying the chickens & wouldn't let them near the feeders. I was getting through a bag of chicken food a week feeding them (plus the amount I was spending on wild bird food) whilst my chooks were losing weight - I simply couldn't afford the extra expense.

As I said earlier, one of my cats caught one of them (which she actually didn't harm & it was released) but when the cats started patrolling the area more frequently the birds luckily disappeared.


----------



## Blitz

Crazy Mazy said:


> Adopt a cat. Seriously. I leave food out 24/7 for the hedgehogs and foxes and have never had a problem with rats with my patrolling cats. A cat's scent is enough to deter a rat. Fact.





Cleo38 said:


> Me too! I love starlings & find them fascinating to watch but again it got to the stage where they were bullying the chickens & wouldn't let them near the feeders. I was getting through a bag of chicken food a week feeding them (plus the amount I was spending on wild bird food) whilst my chooks were losing weight - I simply couldn't afford the extra expense.
> 
> As I said earlier, one of my cats caught one of them (which she actually didn't harm & it was released) but when the cats started patrolling the area more frequently the birds luckily disappeared.


Nothing gets rid of them from here, when there is several hundred in a flock a cat really does not bother them. The dogs kill loads of young birds and we pick up a lot that have fallen out of nests. They are perfect pests and nest everywhere.
If one decides to nest in a car it is a daily job removing part built nests and tractors have to be checked over before they are used and nests removed. No way are our cattle going to starve to death because we cannot make silage because there is a birds nest in the tractor.

I heard of 3 cars burnt out in a 2 week period a short time ago. That is just not acceptable.


----------



## Phoenix24

Starlings are on the decline nationally, whereas the number of pet cats is in the millions. How you could call the starlings pests and not your bird-killing non-native cats is beyond me. Learn to live with and enjoy the native wildlife - starlings are harmless, and though they may nest in annoying or inappropriate places (from some people's pov, certainly not the starlings'!) they are only there for a few weeks and don't have a second brood. Rats on the other hand - not native, breed exponentially, cause harm to native wildlife and humans alike. These are definitely a pest on all fronts (though can be lunch too, for some animals).

By the way, starlings are no more a bullying bird than any other. Robins (aside from being territorial and fighting with each other) will see off dunnocks. Larger birds often see off smaller birds from feeders etc. Anyone who has ever seen a nuthatch guarding a feeder and sending off everything else will know this. Along comes the woodpecker and everything scatters (except perhaps the nuthatch...). I've seen feral pigeons beating up woodpigeons to get food. Woodpigeons batter each other all the time. Sparrows chase each other around - and these are colonial birds. I've sat and watched starlings in the garden, and aside from a few scraps with each other, i've never seen them bullying other birds, they're just chatty and boisterous and come in numbers, and their antics might put off other birds. I'm not saying they don't ever chase anything else off - but i'm saying they are no better or worse a bird in the garden. Seems to me like any creature with a bit of character goes straight on the pest list for some people.


----------



## Blitz

Phoenix24 said:


> Starlings are on the decline nationally, whereas the number of pet cats is in the millions. How you could call the starlings pests and not your bird-killing non-native cats is beyond me. Learn to live with and enjoy the native wildlife - starlings are harmless, and though they may nest in annoying or inappropriate places (from some people's pov, certainly not the starlings'!) they are only there for a few weeks and don't have a second brood. Rats on the other hand - not native, breed exponentially, cause harm to native wildlife and humans alike. These are definitely a pest on all fronts (though can be lunch too, for some animals).


They are pests because, where I live, they are not in decline and they are resident all year and lay from about March right through the summer. They are in their thousands and they cause a lot of nuisance and damage. I do not have pet cats and I consider the resident feral cats to be pests too. Also the resident rats which we dispose of as fast as we can.

Incidentally I picked up a dead swallow the other day. It was still warm and there were two birds who I could not identify as they were moving so fast but starling size which were scrapping with each other and I think must have hit the swallow either accidentally or on purpose.
The swallows are a nuisance in our case as they crap on our cars non stop but there are only a handful of them so we live with them.

We are over run with oystercatchers and curlews too but they live totally separately from humans - except when walking the dogs last thing at night and getting divebombed on occasion.


----------



## puppy88

ndeed extremely sad situation


----------



## alan g a

As anyone considered that animals invade areas that are ours because we are destroying theirs. When we destroy yet more Green Belt land we also destroy their homes.


----------



## noushka05

alan g a said:


> As anyone considered that animals invade areas that are ours because we are destroying theirs. When we destroy yet more Green Belt land we also destroy their homes.


Exactly, habitats are disappearing at an alarming rate, we should be doing everything we can as individuals to help wildlife. If we cant learn to tolerate animals what hope is there?

.


----------



## Knightofalbion

alan g a said:


> As anyone considered that animals invade areas that are ours because we are destroying theirs. When we destroy yet more Green Belt land we also destroy their homes.


That's a very good point, dear Alan. More and more, humans have encroached upon land that wildlife has used for habitat and foraging for millennia. 'We' then express surprise and often dismay when wildlife comes onto our 'property'. Where are they to go?

The phrase 'when everything is not enough' comes to mind.


----------



## alan g a

Firstly, I am aware that this debate has been going on for some time now, but there is one more thing I would like to add. Someone mentioned the MINOR repairable damage caused by deer to woodland. Man destroies more forest and woodland areas in a single day than deer cause in a human lifetime. Who is the biggest villain in this story?


----------



## noushka05

alan g a said:


> Firstly, I am aware that this debate has been going on for some time now, but there is one more thing I would like to add. Someone mentioned the MINOR repairable damage caused by deer to woodland. Man destroies more forest and woodland areas in a single day than deer cause in a human lifetime. Who is the biggest villain in this story?


Excellent point!


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> Excellent point!


So provide acceptable solutions.


----------



## Spockles

Is this for real? Seriously? Robins, at threat?


----------



## Cleo38

alan g a said:


> Firstly, I am aware that this debate has been going on for some time now, but there is one more thing I would like to add. Someone mentioned the MINOR repairable damage caused by deer to woodland. Man destroies more forest and woodland areas in a single day than deer cause in a human lifetime. Who is the biggest villain in this story?


I would dispute that the damage caused by deer is minor! There are incredibly large populations of deer where I live & although they are beautiful to look at they have caused alot of damage in seceral of the woods I walk, caused damage to crops & have caused alot of accidents recently.

I don't think to agrue that man is the bigger villan helps the situation at all, surely there must be some control of certain species in certain areas?


----------



## alan g a

Cleo38 said:


> I would dispute that the damage caused by deer is minor! There are incredibly large populations of deer where I live & although they are beautiful to look at they have caused alot of damage in seceral of the woods I walk, caused damage to crops & have caused alot of accidents recently.
> 
> I don't think to agrue that man is the bigger villan helps the situation at all, surely there must be some control of certain species in certain areas?


Dispute what you like. The damage they cause will not spell the end of the world. What man does, will. Animals do not KNOWINGLY ruin the earth for everything else that lives in it.
PS . I lived on a farm for 7 years. Deer were never a problem. What humans did, could have been disastrous, but we knew how to deal with it. We have the brain power to solve these problems, they don't. It is therefore up to us to find a solution. Or just leave it where it is.


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> So provide acceptable solutions.


I'm presuming you mean for deer management?

Contraception or in suitable places the reintroduction of their natural predators, wolf & lynx.

.


----------



## alan g a

Goblin said:


> So provide acceptable solutions.


There is no solution to a problem that exists only in the minds of men. Deer and forest have lived in harmony for thousands of years and then along comes man and destroys both.


----------



## alan g a

I would like to point out that both lions and wolves were once wild animals in britain. This is no longer true because of mans interference. How much more damage do we have to do before we say 'Enough is enough'? There are a large number of species on the 'ENDANGERED' list because of mans morbid desire to kill anything that moves.


----------



## alan g a

Cleo38 said:


> I would dispute that the damage caused by deer is minor! There are incredibly large populations of deer where I live & although they are beautiful to look at they have caused alot of damage in seceral of the woods I walk, caused damage to crops & have caused alot of accidents recently.
> 
> I don't think to agrue that man is the bigger villan helps the situation at all, surely there must be some control of certain species in certain areas?


I still maintain that the damage caused by deer is minor. The damage they cause is not permanent or disastrous. Only the pockets of man suffer for it, but it's the same old story. "Make as much dosh as you can and to hell with the consequences."


----------



## rona

Wild deer population report | The Wildlife Trusts

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/...goBlobs&blobwhere=1349106530345&ssbinary=true

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Sustainabledeermanagement_tcm9-255888.pdf

WWF Data Support Sheet 6:
Red Deer in Scotland

http://www.ecology.ethz.ch/education/BE_documents/WWF_deer.pdf
*VIEWS OF SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE*
Red deer are an integral part of Scotlands natural heritage and are a valuable resource in economic,
ecological and aesthetic terms. However, the impacts of grazing and trampling by too many deer can
damage other parts of the natural heritage. In general, grazing levels (of domestic stock as well as deer) in
large parts of the Scottish uplands are higher than these habitats can sustain. An overall reduction in red
deer numbers would help to correct the balance between herbivores and their habitat. However, integrating
deer management with other land use interests at the local level will be more effective.
SNH strongly supports the current moves to put deer management onto a more sustainable basis, by taking
greater account of the impacts of the deer on their environment. To this end we are working closely with
other agencies including the Deer Commission for Scotland (DCS), the Forestry Commission Scotland, the
Scottish Executive and with deer managers to explore mechanisms for balancing land use and natural
heritage objectives (see "Agreement on strategic principles for using incentives & regulation in dealing with
adverse impacts to the natural heritage, woodland & agriculture & threats to public safety by wild deer" at
Scottish Natural Heritage - Home under index and then deer). In particular, SNH provides advice to DCS in instances
where deer are thought to be hindering the achievement of natural heritage objectives.
The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 gave people a statutory right of access to most land and inland water.
SNH has prepared the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (2004) for Ministers with a view to ensuring that
access is taken responsibly, without affecting other land uses, including deer management. The successful
Hill Phones scheme sets an example here.
SNH also has a role in advising on the potential conflicts between deer fencing and public objectives which
includes impacts on biodiversity, access and the landscape.

*VIEWS OF WWF SCOTLAND*
The Deer Commission has made great strides in developing a more professional and inclusive approach to
the management of deer, and they are beginning to show their mettle in what they call Priority Sites, where
damage by deer is really serious. But we are still seeing numbers creeping up in many areas, with
widespread damage to the natural heritage as well as to forests, farms, crofts, gardens and road traffic
safety. Is it possible to reconcile all these interests? We think so, if public money can be made available to
help the process of 'collaborative deer management' - a process in which all affected interests in an area
come together and agree whether there are too many or too few deer, and what should be done about it.
Neighbours should be involved of course, but public agencies with wider responsibilities should be there as
well, including those responsible for biodiversity, landscapes and access, river catchments, road safety, and
animal welfare, as these are all affected by deer numbers

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/mediafile/100083942/Deer-position-statement.pdf

About us | The Deer Initiative


----------



## alan g a

Thank you Rona for your input but this research done by people who have a vested interest in the matter. Deer are, as said, wild animals. What right do we have in managing wildlife. Nature as done fine without our help for millions of years. Deer was not a problem until man came along and decided to interfer with a formula that works. It is nature that should decide, not man.


----------



## rona

alan g a said:


> Thank you Rona for your input but this research done by people who have a vested interest in the matter. Deer are, as said, wild animals. What right do we have in managing wildlife. Nature as done fine without our help for millions of years. Deer was not a problem until man came along and decided to interfer with a formula that works. It is nature that should decide, not man.


 Odd how the conservation bodies all control deer or think it's necessary don't you think?

While I agree that it is man to blame, I also believe that to now leave an animal (not just deer) to damage the habitats that support tens of thousands of other creatures would be as big a disaster as that which the human race has already created. The deer are the innocents in this, but still.............

Unfortunately, until the balance of nature is restored I believe we have a duty of care to manage that balance.
You have already said we used to have wolves...........


----------



## alan g a

rona said:


> Odd how the conservation bodies all control deer or think it's necessary don't you think?
> 
> While I agree that it is man to blame, I also believe that to now leave an animal (not just deer) to damage the habitats that support tens of thousands of other creatures would be as big a disaster as that which the human race has already created. The deer are the innocents in this, but still.............
> 
> Unfortunately, until the balance of nature is restored I believe we have a duty of care to manage that balance.
> You have already said we used to have wolves...........


Don't get me wrong. I was not having a go at you. I agree that man is responsible for most of the damage caused to our wildlife. I also agree that it is time for us to step up to the mark and do what we can to resore the balance of nature, but prevention is better than cure.


----------



## Phoenix24

noushka05 said:


> I'm presuming you mean for deer management?
> 
> Contraception or in suitable places the reintroduction of their natural predators, wolf & lynx.
> 
> .


Yes, excellent idea Noushka! Solve the world's problems easily: Mass contraception for humans would reduce the pest population significantly 

Sorry, couldn't help myself


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> Odd how the conservation bodies all control deer or think it's necessary don't you think?
> 
> While I agree that it is man to blame, I also believe that to now leave an animal (not just deer) to damage the habitats that support tens of thousands of other creatures would be as big a disaster as that which the human race has already created. The deer are the innocents in this, but still.............
> 
> Unfortunately, until the balance of nature is restored I believe we have a duty of care to manage that balance.
> You have already said we used to have wolves...........


I certainly don't dispute that deer, in the absence of native predators, can become overpopulated and damage habitat. Therefore 'some form' of population control may be necessary. Conservation bodies, unlike some shooting estates, at least don't deliberately keep deer at artificially high levels for trophy hunting. Any culling carried out by genuine conservation ngo's is supported by educated ecologists, experts in the field, not by prejudiced, uneducated charlatans who persecute species which interfere with vested interests, under the guise of 'wildlife management' . Most wild animal populations aren't, for the most part, controlled by predation > culling!

Isnt man doing a an absolute dismal job 'restoring a balance'? Its time to rewild, to restore ecosystems by reintroducing some of our lost predators. Population control is not the only influence that large predators have on their prey. Fear of predation leads to substantial behavioural modification, and wolf and lynx will create woodland just by their presence.

Any harm caused by wildlife to habitats is insignificant when compared to the harm caused by man. An excellent example; the grouse moors you so vociferously defend, they are industrial wastelands. Mark Avery asks; Is this Pretty? Is this pretty? | Mark Avery Do you honestly believe they are teeming with wildlife? Now compare those images with Dundreggan, an ex sporting estate http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/about/external/Scotland Outdoors-Summer12.pdf Look what can be achieved when nature is put before selfish interests.

*Our vision is to restore a wild forest, which is there for its own sake, as a home for wildlife and to fulfil the ecological functions necessary for the wellbeing of the land itself. *

,


----------



## rona

alan g a said:


> Don't get me wrong. I was not having a go at you. I agree that man is responsible for most of the damage caused to our wildlife. I also agree that it is time for us to step up to the mark and do what we can to resore the balance of nature, but prevention is better than cure.


Far to late for prevention in some cases


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> Far to late for prevention in some cases


Not too late to stop destroying and try to put right the wrongs though Rona:thumbsup:

.


----------



## Jesthar

Much as it might be nice to see lynx and wolves roaming the UK again, it's not likely to happen. Too much fear of humans being attacked by them, and I don't see that obstacle being overcome with any degree of ease.

Also, aren't only two of the several species of deer roaming the UK actually native, and therefore a part of the natural ecosystem? Has there ever been any research into whether there is more damage done by non-native species, as it would be logical to think they would impact in a more negative way, much the same as grey squirrels do compared with red squirrels.


----------



## rona

Jesthar said:


> Much as it might be nice to see lynx and wolves roaming the UK again, it's not likely to happen. Too much fear of humans being attacked by them, and I don't see that obstacle being overcome with any degree of ease.
> 
> Also, aren't only two of the several species of deer roaming the UK actually native, and therefore a part of the natural ecosystem? Has there ever been any research into whether there is more damage done by non-native species, as it would be logical to think they would impact in a more negative way, much the same as grey squirrels do compared with red squirrels.


I believe Sika are very destructive.


----------



## noushka05

Jesthar said:


> Much as it might be nice to see lynx and wolves roaming the UK again, it's not likely to happen. Too much fear of humans being attacked by them, and I don't see that obstacle being overcome with any degree of ease.
> 
> Also, aren't only two of the several species of deer roaming the UK actually native, and therefore a part of the natural ecosystem? Has there ever been any research into whether there is more damage done by non-native species, as it would be logical to think they would impact in a more negative way, much the same as grey squirrels do compared with red squirrels.


There is no ecological reason not to reintroduce either wolf or lynx to certain areas, so imo its our ethical duty to do so, after all we exterminated them. We expect other nations to live with large predators, far more dangerous ones than either of these species. Its time to put aside our zoophobia & get some perspective, there is no record of a lynx harming anyone, and no verified account of a wolf killing anyone in the last 100 yrs in the USA.

I believe, once this ecocidal govt are out, lynx reintroduction will happen. Lynx UK Trust, a conservation charity reintroducing captive bred Eurasian lynx to the British Isles

Only red & roe deer are indigenous to the UK, the other 4 species are non native - infact 48% of all our terrestrial mammals are non native species. In many areas red deer are destroying habitat, in other areas its fallow & so on - its the same reason every time - an absence of large predators.

Its the same ecological answer to grey squirrel control, reintroduction of an extirpated predator - the pine marten. Pine martens are pushing back the grey squirrel in Ireland & red squirrels are moving in behind.

If we want a dynamic functioning ecosystem we should restore what we have broken, then let nature get on with it

.

__________________


----------



## alan g a

Jesthar said:


> Much as it might be nice to see lynx and wolves roaming the UK again, it's not likely to happen. Too much fear of humans being attacked by them, and I don't see that obstacle being overcome with any degree of ease.
> 
> Also, aren't only two of the several species of deer roaming the UK actually native, and therefore a part of the natural ecosystem? Has there ever been any research into whether there is more damage done by non-native species, as it would be logical to think they would impact in a more negative way, much the same as grey squirrels do compared with red squirrels.


There is a place somewhere near Tibet ( I'm not sure exactly where, but I can find out) where wild Tigers walk the streets. They are like big pussy cats, and people pay good money just to go and stroke them. This proves that man CAN get on with nature, and live in harmony with it.


----------



## alan g a

I've got 5 questions to ask:
1, Who does the counting?
2, Who decides what that number should be?
3, What is that number?
4, How did they work that number out?
Finally, and probably the most important question of all.
5, What if they're wrong?


----------



## alan g a

alan g a said:


> There is a place somewhere near Tibet ( I'm not sure exactly where, but I can find out) where wild Tigers walk the streets. They are like big pussy cats, and people pay good money just to go and stroke them. This proves that man CAN get on with nature, and live in harmony with it.


Here you go guys.
Tigers and Monks - YouTube


----------



## Jesthar

alan g a said:


> There is a place somewhere near Tibet ( I'm not sure exactly where, but I can find out) where wild Tigers walk the streets. They are like big pussy cats, and people pay good money just to go and stroke them. This proves that man CAN get on with nature, and live in harmony with it.


Perhaps, but I think you would have to agree that this not only a very extreme scenario, but also pretty unusual behaviour for an apex predator animal, and not likely to have the potential to extend beyond that particular tiger population and circumstances. And I suspect if you removed their provided food supply, their behaviour would revert to their natural survivial instinct: to hunt, kill and eat. They'll HAVE to if the abbot there wants to achieve his dream of re-populating his country with wild tigers. And that is extremely likely to lead to some of the wild tigers attacking humans, just as happens in other countries.

That's not a slight on the tigers, just the natural order of things. Tigers are born to kill other things and eat them for food. if you feed them ready prepared meat, then that instinct does not need to kick in (much like the giant tanks at some aquariums which have bigs sharks in, and the sharks don't eat the other fish because they are well fed and don't need to. But stop feeding them, and you'd start losing the other fish...) and they will save their hunting energy. Remove the food source, and I wouldn't want to be near them when they got hungry! 

I suppose the point is that even though we can make every effort humanly possible to get along with nature, then although it will usually accept and exploit those efforts, nature often doesn't give a particularly big hoot about getting on with us in return. That's not to say we shouldn't make the effort, but _in general_ it's a one way relationship, at least on the emotional level. You say to a rabbit "It's OK, I'm not going to shoot or trap you for the pot" and it's not going to say "Thanks, in return I won't eat your veggie garden" is it? So in general the best we can hope for is to find a workable balance, and sometimes that is going to necessitate shoving aside the sentimentality and acknowledging the actual reality of natural life is tooth and claw.

Or for the TL:DR version: We might love nature, but no matter how much we try it will rarely truly love us back


----------



## alan g a

It may be extreme but not unusual. I have personally come face to face with a male adult tiger in the wild. We both stood and stared at each other for a while. The tiger eventually got bored, let out a loud roar and disappeared back the way it came.


----------



## Jesthar

alan g a said:


> It may be extreme but not unusual. I have personally come face to face with a male adult tiger in the wild. We both stood and stared at each other for a while. The tiger eventually got bored, let out a loud roar and disappeared back the way it came.


As tigers hunt by ambush, then he's not very likely to attack prey he knows has seen him. Even confirmed man-eaters stalk until they are sure their target is alone, unarmed and hasn't spotted them. Most tiger attack victims (human and animal) never see it coming until the very last second.

Must have been an amazing experience, though!  The wildest thing I've ever unexpectedly come face to face with is deer whilst out riding...


----------



## noushka05

Jesthar said:


> Perhaps, but I think you would have to agree that this not only a very extreme scenario, but also pretty unusual behaviour for an apex predator animal, and not likely to have the potential to extend beyond that particular tiger population and circumstances. And I suspect if you removed their provided food supply, their behaviour would revert to their natural survivial instinct: to hunt, kill and eat. They'll HAVE to if the abbot there wants to achieve his dream of re-populating his country with wild tigers. And that is extremely likely to lead to some of the wild tigers attacking humans, just as happens in other countries.
> 
> That's not a slight on the tigers, just the natural order of things. Tigers are born to kill other things and eat them for food. if you feed them ready prepared meat, then that instinct does not need to kick in (much like the giant tanks at some aquariums which have bigs sharks in, and the sharks don't eat the other fish because they are well fed and don't need to. But stop feeding them, and you'd start losing the other fish...) and they will save their hunting energy. Remove the food source, and I wouldn't want to be near them when they got hungry!
> 
> I suppose the point is that even though we can make every effort humanly possible to get along with nature, then although it will usually accept and exploit those efforts, nature often doesn't give a particularly big hoot about getting on with us in return. That's not to say we shouldn't make the effort, but _in general_ it's a one way relationship, at least on the emotional level. You say to a rabbit "It's OK, I'm not going to shoot or trap you for the pot" and it's not going to say "Thanks, in return I won't eat your veggie garden" is it? So in general the best we can hope for is to find a workable balance, and sometimes that is going to necessitate shoving aside the sentimentality and acknowledging the actual reality of natural life is tooth and claw.
> 
> Or for the TL:DR version: We might love nature, but no matter how much we try it will rarely truly love us back


You don't have to have close interaction with wild animals to live in harmony with nature, you don't ever have to see the animals to care about them & love them, look at the 1000s of good people fighting to save our badgers from a shameful badger cull? most of those people have never seen a live badger in the wild. It doesn't stop them appreciating and respecting the natural world & fighting to save it.

That said tigers are like us, like our dogs - they are all individuals - I don't think many of our dogs would kill & eat us if they were hungry ( though i wouldn't put it past my Noush) so I suspect the same is true of a 'befriended' tiger. The great John Aspinall once said 1 in 12 tigers have a bad streak, whereas he thought with humans more like 1 in 3 - his theory, not mine. There are quite a few documented cases of wild black & some brown bears behaving friendly towards humans, unfortunately this behaviour has left them sitting targets for vile trophy hunters! Sadly this is why we shouldn't befriend wild animals, more so for their safety from the depraved of our race, than for ours.

There are also numerous documented examples of bottlenose dolphins displaying not only friendly behaviour towarad humans, but actually going out of their way to save human lives. Research has shown that these animals can display care & empathy for others, even individuals of a different species.

We really do underestimate the emotional capabilities of animals, even of the higher mammals. It pays to remember this - we are merely clever primates

.



alan g a said:


> It may be extreme but not unusual. I have personally come face to face with a male adult tiger in the wild. We both stood and stared at each other for a while. The tiger eventually got bored, let out a loud roar and disappeared back the way it came.


Wow, what an incredibly awesome experience - I think I would have had to change my underwear though


----------



## Phoenix24

alan g a said:


> It may be extreme but not unusual. I have personally come face to face with a male adult tiger in the wild. We both stood and stared at each other for a while. The tiger eventually got bored, let out a loud roar and disappeared back the way it came.


Local people in areas with tigers often wear fake eyes on the back of their hats (on caps, for example) so the tigers think they have seen them.


----------



## Jesthar

Phoenix24 said:


> Local people in areas with tigers often wear fake eyes on the back of their hats (on caps, for example) so the tigers think they have seen them.


Actually, I believe this practice is waning. It worked for a while, but the tigers quickly learned to tell the difference...

Noush, I said 'rarely' and 'in general', not 'never'.  Oh, and you're not the only one who'd have to change your underwear!


----------



## noushka05

Jesthar said:


> Actually, I believe this practice is waning. It worked for a while, but the tigers quickly learned to tell the difference...
> 
> Noush, I said 'rarely' and 'in general', not 'never'.  Oh, and you're not the only one who'd have to change your underwear!


Sorry if I got a bit carried away then:tongue_smilie: Hahaa we must remember to pack extra undies if we ever go off on an expedition - just incase


----------



## alan g a

You're right. It was scary. It's a good job I was wearing brown trousers at the time.

Nature does what nature does. You can't predict it, so why do we bother trying?


----------



## noushka05

alan g a said:


> You're right. It was scary. It's a good job I was wearing brown trousers at the time.
> 
> Nature does what nature does. You can't predict it, so why do we bother trying?


Exactly, and that's the way it should be - wild & wonderful


----------



## noushka05

Phoenix24 said:


> Yes, excellent idea Noushka! Solve the world's problems easily: Mass contraception for humans would reduce the pest population significantly
> 
> Sorry, couldn't help myself


LOL I'm full of good ideas Looks like the animals are opting for a more conventional way of thinning us out though:devil:


----------

