Bird nesting season vs potentially dangerous tree

[Mark Bolam]

Don’t get me wrong, we give ANY nesting birds due consideration, regardless of species, and have pulled off loads of jobs because of them.

Gone back to finish at my expense.

It’s just the right thing to do, and customers have always been onside.

Anno, you’re being a bit pedantic here.

I have found live nests now (squabs, not eggs) in every single calendar month, including January.

To halt operations because there MAY be nesting birds in ADJACENT trees is utterly ludicrous.

Well done on a timely removal fella, that tree was shot.

I hear you on the x-ray specs thing!

[AHPP]

£5000 further for every egg destroyed.

 

They’re going to need forensics bods who know how to get into the flywheel case of a woodchipper.

 

[daltontrees]

What the f*** typical gung-ho Arbtalk advice that doesn't know the legal liabilities. I had a serous situation last year with a nesting bird preventing  felling of a really big knackered tree, and we are talking killer 30m high mature tree over a hotel dining room. It was a TPO, and I notified immediate removal under exemption. but when I checked whether there was an exemption under Wildlife and Countryside Act the 'public safety' exemption didn't apply. SNH basically said that private safety did not trump WCA prohibitions. We waited till a scabby wood pigeon left of its own accord, then the tree was removed sharpish.

 

Just be careful of Arbtalkers saying safety first, they won't be beside you in court giving evidence pleading in mitigation. Probably a good thing that they won't. There's such  thing as an in-credibe witnessesi. 'specially internet ones.

[monkeybusiness]

2 hours ago, daltontrees said:

What the f*** typical gung-ho Arbtalk advice that doesn't know the legal liabilities. I had a serous situation last year with a nesting bird preventing  felling of a really big knackered tree, and we are talking killer 30m high mature tree over a hotel dining room. It was a TPO, and I notified immediate removal under exemption. but when I checked whether there was an exemption under Wildlife and Countryside Act the 'public safety' exemption didn't apply. SNH basically said that private safety did not trump WCA prohibitions. We waited till a scabby wood pigeon left of its own accord, then the tree was removed sharpish.

 

Just be careful of Arbtalkers saying safety first, they won't be beside you in court giving evidence pleading in mitigation. Probably a good thing that they won't. There's such  thing as an in-credibe witnessesi. 'specially internet ones.

How long had it been a killer tree, and how many people did it kill?

[Stubby]

7 hours ago, daltontrees said:

What the f*** typical gung-ho Arbtalk advice that doesn't know the legal liabilities. I had a serous situation last year with a nesting bird preventing  felling of a really big knackered tree, and we are talking killer 30m high mature tree over a hotel dining room. It was a TPO, and I notified immediate removal under exemption. but when I checked whether there was an exemption under Wildlife and Countryside Act the 'public safety' exemption didn't apply. SNH basically said that private safety did not trump WCA prohibitions. We waited till a scabby wood pigeon left of its own accord, then the tree was removed sharpish.

 

Just be careful of Arbtalkers saying safety first, they won't be beside you in court giving evidence pleading in mitigation. Probably a good thing that they won't. There's such  thing as an in-credibe witnessesi. 'specially internet ones.

There was no nests in the tree concerned . That's how I read it .

[Stubby]

As for " disturbing " If that big old bugger fell over it would have disturbed a few .

[warren]

There was no nests in the tree concerned . That's how I read it .

You read correctly .. nor in trees within 10m.

[Gary Prentice]

19 minutes ago, warren said:

50 minutes ago, Stubby said:

There was no nests in the tree concerned . That's how I read it .

You read correctly .. nor in trees within 10m.

This is where I'm struggling to get answers. Is anyone claiming that a nesting bird won't be disturbed in a tree 10+ m away, but will be classed as being disturbed at 9m away? And surely the disturbance probability is also species specific? Lots of people report Robins nesting in stupid locations like flower pots in garden sheds. Is it reckless to use the shed as normal (because the bird seems accepting and carries on).

 

Some of the legislation seems very poorly defined and open to interpretation, so even if you try to be compliant there's not much in the way of guidance to how to do so. 

[Stubby]

Just now, Gary Prentice said:

This is where I'm struggling to get answers. Is anyone claiming that a nesting bird won't be disturbed in a tree 10+ m away, but will be classed as being disturbed at 9m away? And surely the disturbance probability is also species specific? Lots of people report Robins nesting in stupid locations like flower pots in garden sheds. Is it reckless to use the shed as normal (because the bird seems accepting and carries on).

 

Some of the legislation seems very poorly defined and open to interpretation, so even if you try to be compliant there's not much in the way of guidance to how to do so. 

We " disturb " birds every day , day in day out . The same as they disturb us (  moorhens calling at night , dawn chorus etc etc ) and they are not the least bit bothered .  They may hop fly off for a bit but usually come back .  Robins can become quite tame . One used to eat porridge oats out of my Granddads hand when I was young .  I think in this situation common sense has prevailed .

[Gary Prentice]

4 minutes ago, Stubby said:

I think in this situation common sense has prevailed .

Common sense. Don't get me started on common sense. There's no such thing. Common sense is only what a majority believe that it is and my issue is that an over zealous protagonist may claim 'disturbance' and the defendant has little assistance in legislation to defend themselves. 

 

I read somewhere, IIRC, that in forestry work Badger setts must have a 100m exclusion zone around them, to prevent disturbance. At least that is empirical and everyone is clear on what they can and can't do. 

10 minutes ago, Stubby said:

The same as they disturb us (  moorhens calling at night , dawn chorus etc etc ) and they are not the least bit bothered

Apparently after Brexit, that's all going to change