Nesting.

[JohnsonC97]

Possibly a silly question, but with nesting season being from Feb-Aug, I have a magpies next in my tree with no eggs but still a little activity, do I need to wait until there is absolutely no activity or can I move the nest to cut the tree?

[openspaceman]

16 minutes ago, JohnsonC97 said:

 

Possibly a silly question, but with nesting season being from Feb-Aug, I have a magpies next in my tree with no eggs but still a little activity, do I need to wait until there is absolutely no activity or can I move the nest to cut the tree?

 

It depends what the "activity" is. You must not intentionally take, damage or destroy a wild bird’s nest while it’s being used or built. Also some birds, e.g. wood pigeon, breed throughout the year, we were stopped on a job with pigeon squabs in a nest last week.

[Vedhoggar]

19 hours ago, JohnsonC97 said:

 

Possibly a silly question, but with nesting season being from Feb-Aug, I have a magpies next in my tree with no eggs but still a little activity, do I need to wait until there is absolutely no activity or can I move the nest to cut the tree?

 

Magpies have one brood and nesting period normally over by end of June. It is only an offence under Wildlife and Countryside Act to take, damage or destroy the nest of a wild bird whilst in use or being built, you say no eggs in nest then it will not be in use now therefore it would seem reasonable to fell the tree.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Vedhoggar

[Dan Maynard]

You asked if you can move the nest, pretty sure the answer to that is always no.

I'm also interested in this question as had another nest on Sundays job. I have it in my head that if you were to work close enough or cut the tree enough to cause the nest to be abandoned, but not actually touch the nest, that would still constitute destroying it.

Not suggesting to break the law but how many people actually get prosecuted for the offence? Is it a law with teeth?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, Dan Maynard said:

Is it a law with teeth?

Maybe hens teeth!

 

Anyone that got them self prosecuted would have to be pretty dull and/or ignorant. 
 

For an offence to be committed it has to be proven (or admitted) that the act was ‘intentional.’  
 

Proving intent - rather than negligence - would be a pretty tall order without supporting evidence.  
 

 All that said, it would take a ‘special’ sort of Neanderthal to intentionally take / damage / disturb an active nest. 
 

Makes you wonder if the legislation was actually intended to prevent / prosecute ‘trophy’ egg hunters or perhaps game keepers looking to kill birds of prey and the unintended consequence has spilled over the broader issues associated with tree / hedge cutting. 
 

 

[openspaceman]

9 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Proving intent - rather than negligence - would be a pretty tall order without supporting evidence.  

The word "reckless" is used for  schedule one species rather than negligent.

 

The problem is you don't know if a nest is there until you check and if you find one no matter what the species it shows intent if you harm it.

 

I agree there is little chance of being caught and don't know of prosecutions other than poisoning/shooting raptors or stealing eggs.

 

My main take on it is the legislation is a reaction to loss of bird species, it's shutting the door after the horse has bolted because the losses are related to inadvertant effects of our development rather than  general domestic activities