Hi Vic

don't know the site you are referring to so can't comment specifically, but I do know that grass has to be kept short on reservoir dams (and presumably water-containing banks). If the grass grows too long they can't see any cracks in the dam

However, all birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law and it is thus an offence, with certain exceptions (see Exceptions), to:

intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird
intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built
intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird

One of the exceptions is:

it is not illegal to destroy a nest, egg or bird if it can be shown that the act was the incidental result of a lawful operation which could not reasonably have been avoided.

I'll keep my opinions of some UU staff to myself...

Cheers, Steve

Yesterday at a United Utilities site I tried to prevent the mowing of grass where several pairs of Skylark were nesting (I saw one bird carrying food as well as hearing 3 singing birds) The young man in charge told me that they had a contract with United Utilities for the area in question to be mowed every two months. It was deliberately cut in March each year so that the grass would be too short for Skylarks to breed. I pointed out that this was not successful. He said that as the area was a covered reservoir for drinking water that they were legally obliged to carry out the work. He said that he would take up the matter with United Utilities. From experience, the chances of getting any concessions are between remote and nil. Mowing of the area in question was almost finished by 5pm and I assume it would have been completed by mid morning today. Sadly the site also contains tens of thousands of Cowslips which have all been mown of course. Incidentaly I was told that they avoid one small area where Common Spotted Orchids grow.

Some years ago myself and a friend managed to stop the chemical spraying of the bed of a reservoir that had been drained for roadworks purposes. Several species of bird were nesting on the area involved including 4 pairs of Little Ringed Plovers It involved a lot of heated discussions and phone calls before the NCC threatened the road building company with legal action and plans for spraying were stopped. At the time the Conservation Officer (or whatever his title was at the time) for United Utilities was sympathetic and gave some support.

Unfortunately the present holder of the post is just the opposite. He never replies to phone calls,emails or letters and is never in when you phone (allegedly)

I've spent some time trying to find the legal implications out but it would seem that I'm flogging a dead horse, as of course there is a get out clause (there always is). I quote from the RSPB web site ---
"There is a defence if it can be shown that the act was an incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided".

So as usual one of the big private companies gets away with it. I can remember when a pair of Hen Harriers nested on United Utilities land. It was on the internet, newspapers and TV showing how wonderful and conservation conscious the United Utilities were but in actual fact don't give a damn.
I can't see what else to do and in any case it's too late for this years breeding birds. Who was it that said the law is an ass?

Rob Thorpe wrote:

---

I have intentionally stayed away from any discussions on this forum for some time now, but feel I must voice my opinion on this matter...

Who are we to decide that it is ok for certain species to live but not others?

 The greed of us humans, including farmers, is much to blame for the decline, and even extinction of many species, species we are now trying to protect or re-introduce.

To try to justify the killing of any living thing purely because it has an impact on the profitability of farming just highlights the problem facing the world: humans, in general, are too greedy to care about anything other than wealth!

Let's not forget, the "pests" that are being persecuted here are only trying to survive, they aren't stealing the farmers' crops to sell and make a profit.

You could look at it the other way around, that we are in fact the pests, that we have destroyed the habitats of many a species all in the name of capitalism and "growth". Maybe we are the ones who should be controlled so that everything else can get on with living?

It makes me sick that whilst we have evolved to reach such advanced intelligence, we still allow the wealthy few to control us and make us believe that this is the only way.

We could live very comfortable and happier lives without the need to destroy everything we share this planet with... Ok we may not have our iPads, our LCD TVs or our 4x4 sports utility vehicles, but do we really need those things in order to survive and be happy, or do the ruling class need us to think that we need those things, for fear that one day we might stop spending most of our lives doing their work for them and spend more time birding instead?

---

One mans pest is another mans hobby!

I wouldnt disagree Rob, but that is a bit of a different discussion on moral grounds rather than the legal position. That I think is a whole different world.

-- Edited by Craig Higson on Wednesday 11th of May 2011 07:29:48 PM

Rob Thorpe wrote:

---

I have intentionally stayed away from any discussions on this forum for some time now, but feel I must voice my opinion on this matter...

Who are we to decide that it is ok for certain species to live but not others?

 The greed of us humans, including farmers, is much to blame for the decline, and even extinction of many species, species we are now trying to protect or re-introduce.

To try to justify the killing of any living thing purely because it has an impact on the profitability of farming just highlights the problem facing the world: humans, in general, are too greedy to care about anything other than wealth!

Let's not forget, the "pests" that are being persecuted here are only trying to survive, they aren't stealing the farmers' crops to sell and make a profit.

You could look at it the other way around, that we are in fact the pests, that we have destroyed the habitats of many a species all in the name of capitalism and "growth". Maybe we are the ones who should be controlled so that everything else can get on with living?

It makes me sick that whilst we have evolved to reach such advanced intelligence, we still allow the wealthy few to control us and make us believe that this is the only way.

We could live very comfortable and happier lives without the need to destroy everything we share this planet with... Ok we may not have our iPads, our LCD TVs or our 4x4 sports utility vehicles, but do we really need those things in order to survive and be happy, or do the ruling class need us to think that we need those things, for fear that one day we might stop spending most of our lives doing their work for them and spend more time birding instead?

---

Whilst in principle I agree with what you are saying, the effects of everything we do alters the balance of nature and in some cases without control we would have serious problems with food supply, as you said we are animals that need controlling

I have intentionally stayed away from any discussions on this forum for some time now, but feel I must voice my opinion on this matter...

Who are we to decide that it is ok for certain species to live but not others?

 The greed of us humans, including farmers, is much to blame for the decline, and even extinction of many species, species we are now trying to protect or re-introduce.

To try to justify the killing of any living thing purely because it has an impact on the profitability of farming just highlights the problem facing the world: humans, in general, are too greedy to care about anything other than wealth!

Let's not forget, the "pests" that are being persecuted here are only trying to survive, they aren't stealing the farmers' crops to sell and make a profit.

You could look at it the other way around, that we are in fact the pests, that we have destroyed the habitats of many a species all in the name of capitalism and "growth". Maybe we are the ones who should be controlled so that everything else can get on with living?

It makes me sick that whilst we have evolved to reach such advanced intelligence, we still allow the wealthy few to control us and make us believe that this is the only way.

We could live very comfortable and happier lives without the need to destroy everything we share this planet with... Ok we may not have our iPads, our LCD TVs or our 4x4 sports utility vehicles, but do we really need those things in order to survive and be happy, or do the ruling class need us to think that we need those things, for fear that one day we might stop spending most of our lives doing their work for them and spend more time birding instead?

Ian - I suspect we are losing something in the discussion via message board, so apologies again if I'm telling you what you already know. The whole reason behind the 'General Licence' is that DEFRA effectively apply for a derogation of the Birds Directive to allow some species (i.e. those on the list) to be controlled so that individuals dont have to. The principle being that e.g. farmers dont have to apply for a licence then sit there and watch crops being decimated by woodpigeons (we might not like it but it does happen) why the licence is processed. None of the species listed on this general licence requires anyone to apply, and if it isnt listed on the general licence or on one of the quarry lists (e.g. Wildfowl or gamebirds) then it shouldnt be shot or killed in any other way. Its the same system that has been used for quite a number of years.

As you say however, the question is who enforces it. Ultimately it should be the police as the Wildlife and Countryside Act (which this effectively is) is a piece of criminal law. I believe there was a case a number of years ago where the RSPB pursued the prosecution of someone who had shot a woodpigeon in his garden because it could not be shown that shooting it was done under the restrictions of the licence.

Whilst some people may not like it, our food would cost a considerable amount more if farmers didnt protect their crops against pests - feathered or otherwise.

Ian Peters wrote:

---

If there is any small consolation, none of the species on the list seems to be suffering severe population declines...not that I see that as an excuse.

---

l understand, but l (like you hopefully) feel that the blasting of any animal, breeding or not, under the guise of it being 'vermin'....is despicable.

Ian Peters wrote:

---

The problem with the General License list is that there is no legal definition of vermin, merely that they are species that can be controlled. This has led to some unscrupulous landowners renting out their land for visiting foreign and national shooting parties. In the strictest sense, this is not covered by the conditions of the General License but it is impossible to do anything about it. If there is any small consolation, none of the species on the list seems to be suffering severe population declines...not that I see that as an excuse.

---

Perhaps I'm misreading / misunderstanding you Ian, but there is most definitely a list of which species can be controlled under the general licences. Most of these are what was at one time considered 'vermin' but are now reffered to as pest species(much of a muchness).

Also the licence is in itself not a licence as you would imagine. One of the conditions of the licence states: "In respect to the species listed at paragraph 2(i)(a) above, this licence can only be relied on in circumstances where the authorised person is satisfied that appropriate legal methods of resolving the problem such as scaring and proofing are either ineffective or impracticable (see note o)." In other words (and this is only my understanding) if you cannot demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied you cannot use the licence as a defence if challenged. (The quoted sections are from the actual licence on Natural Englands website).

-- Edited by Craig Higson on Thursday 28th of April 2011 11:37:54 PM

Those of us who signed the petition and helped stop wholesale privatisation of forests may be interested in the campaign against weakening wildlife laws.


Have a look at this:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/dont-scrap-environment-laws

The government claims that these laws are 'red tape,' but in reality we need these laws to stop politicians and private companies from harming our environment.

When thousands of us signed the petition to Save our Forests, it worked. If as many of us as possible sign this petition, the government will have to listen.

Please sign the petition here:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/dont-scrap-environment-laws

Steve

Up in South West Scotland they shoot out rookeries every year when the adults are feeding young to maximise the slaughter.They reckon that Rooks disturb a lot of seedlings when they are grubbing about in the soil(at least thats the excuse they use for this wholesale slaughter).They dont seem to realise that Rooks do far more good than harm by consuming vast numbers of Leatherjackets which can cause a lot of damage to crops.Mind you Scotland is still in the dark ages when it comes to conservation issues

Steve Suttill wrote:

---

I was talking to someone the other week who had been served Rook pie whilst working on a farm during WWII. He said it tasted very good. He also went on to work for the RSPB for many years, but I don't think he mentioned the Rook pie at his job interview!

---

The gunmakers Holland & Holland actually developed a specialised 'rook rifle' in 1883. These were a slightly larger calibre than your avarage rabbit-and-crow-shooting .22's and were used to shoot 'branchers' - young rooks just venturing away from the nest onto surrounding twigs.

Ian Boote wrote:

---

I seem to remember Hugh Fearnley Whiting trousers in the 1990's going into a rookary taking young ones and baking a pie

---

l watched that programme, well up to the point where he actually took the young out of the nest

I seem to remember Hugh Fearnley Whiting trousers in the 1990's going into a rookary taking young ones and baking a pie, other menu busters were wood lice, tasted like shrimp so he reported, various rotting road kills, and something that would and does turn my stomach, oh matron.

I was talking to someone the other week who had been served Rook pie whilst working on a farm during WWII. He said it tasted very good. He also went on to work for the RSPB for many years, but I don't think he mentioned the Rook pie at his job interview!

Steve

l learnt last week, people will eat Rooks as they are cleaner than Crows.

Some people also eat Rooks - the blackbirds in a pie in the song were probably/possibly Rooks - as it is apparently a delicacy, especially in lancs as well I believe.

I was always under the impression that it was more the Carrion Crows that farmers disliked for attacking livestock, and that many farmers actually quite like Rooks as they eat leatherjackets which can attack the roots of crops. So perhaps this individual was someone shooting for the pot?

-- Edited by Craig Higson on Wednesday 13th of April 2011 11:11:44 PM

Living rurally now and at the sharp end of seeing hunting/shooting/general wildlife mismanagement and destruction, I share you sentiments. However corvids not only peck out the eyes of lambs, they also peck out the eyes of ewes that are down, so a farmer will shoot these birds. After seeing an incident a few months ago, I did a lot of research into what you can shoot, and corvids (vermin) are on the list to be shot. As are Jays (crow family I know), a few Gull species, Woodpigeon, Collard Dove and a few other species I cant remember now. So yes the farmer is protectiong his stock, However, whats more frustrating is this apparent excuse to protection of stock, comes very unstuck when you see the general state of the stock from the lack of care from the farmers.

Ian McKerchar wrote:

---

I'm sure the guy with the shotgun views those Rooks attacking his sheep as you do those Magpies attacking your young Starlings Melanie

---

...don't like the thought of him and l having any kind of similar thoughts

I believe it's called earning a living?

Hey, but never mind, we have the President of the RSPB presenting 'Lambing Live' next week on the tele. What the hell is she up to getting involved in that kind of programme?

I'm sure the guy with the shotgun views those Rooks attacking his sheep as you do those Magpies attacking your young Starlings Melanie but whilst you wouldn't go to such lengths to stop them, he will as he's (allegedly) protecting his livelyhood and within the law I'm afraid. Not an argument for me though, just an observation

Melanie, you only have to look at the Raptor Politics web site to know that birds are not always protected by the law, the Trough is a prime example.

Whilst coming home yesterday from The Trough Of Bowland. l saw someone virtually hugging a tree, with a shotgun in his hand aimed at a Rookery The bird were all circling and want to roost but unable as they knew the fatal consequenses Why does the law allow this ? We contacted Paul Heaton and were told, that Corvids peck the eyes out of Lambs. l understand that the birds are attracted to the placenta, then the newborn Lambs are at risk, but is the threat to the lambs REALLY that big ? Plus l would've thought that the Ewes would be an aggressive deterrent ?