re - nesting birds

[Patrick goulding]

6 minutes ago, difflock said:

In this instance, quite rightly.

Perhaps if the decent/law abiding/interested in natural-nature fellow landowners(with shooting estates) boycotted this particular callous cretin it might help.

 

Totally agree with that but not everyone is bad are they

[eggsarascal]

5 minutes ago, Patrick goulding said:

Your jumping the gun do you know the facts? Was you there? Straight away your saying it’s got to be a keeperd estate I don’t get that. because there is a shoot they want to kill birds of prey you just can’t say that. I might be wrong might of been a bad apple 🍏 but you can’t go pointing thingers That’s what am getting at why couldn’t it of been a farm  labourer who removed the tree because there was a reason for removing it ie dead or disesed but unfortunately that bird was nesting in that tree and the guy felled It not everyone nose the laws to things plus not everyone nose what a goss hawk is now days a lot of ppl don’t no anything to do with the country side kids now days don’t even no where there food comes from. And as for me I’m a country man through and through and I wouldn’t like to see any wildlife go extinct and I love my birds of prey especially barn owls all am saying just think 🤔 sometimes not everyone is bad news Cheers 🍻 👍 

Give over, fell one tree in a wood because it's ddd. It just happens that tree had a Goshawk nest in it.

 

listen to yourself.

[Patrick goulding]

18 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

Give over, fell one tree in a wood because it's ddd. It just happens that tree had a Goshawk nest in it.

 

listen to yourself.

Your right I’m going to mate I can’t see you but can tell you see one way and that’s it we couldn’t have a discussion that’s the trouble with pro shooters and not. they can’t actually sit down and talk. And if they could all these folks for wildlife and conservation if they could wow what could happen. And you have a right to your opinion I respect that. But don’t always think things are as they seem cos there not. And there is a lot of un educated folk around.

[devon TWiG]

I am a bit bewildered not only by the seemingly light punishment ...but by the fact a " labourer" was sent to fell tree !  does he have necessary  certs etc etc ...as Goshawks nest in large trees not shrubs !!

[Anno]

It was a shooting estate, also anyone who’s spent any time in a wood with an active goshawk nest in the breeding season cannot fail to notice it, and if you’re a forester that spends most days out amongst the trees, there is absolutely no way you’d miss it. Huge in structure, everywhere covered with white crap and prey remains, and the adults are very vocal!

(This is not a cryptic species that cowers down and maintains silence by playing dead when under threat.)

I would argue that it is virtually impossible to stand next to the nest tree, fell it with a chainsaw and remove the trunk and all the branches without noticing there was an active goshawk nest in it, even the worst kind of idiot could not make such a mistake .

[Con]

3 minutes ago, devon TWiG said:

I am a bit bewildered not only by the seemingly light punishment ...but by the fact a " labourer" was sent to fell tree !  does he have necessary  certs etc etc ...as Goshawks nest in large trees not shrubs !!

Anyone can fell a tree (or attempt to) No one can fell a tree with an active nest.

It's probably because anyone with certs had refused to do it

[openspaceman]

1 hour ago, Anno said:

It was a shooting estate, also anyone who’s spent any time in a wood with an active goshawk nest in the breeding season cannot fail to notice it,

but was it during the breeding season and was it "active" with birds occupying it or was it active because a pair of bird regularly return and use it for nesting?

 

It looks to me that he wasn't prosecuted and paid the money over as a donation, though I have not followed the case.

 

The bigger burden falls on the landowner who has to allow the monitoring of raptor nest on his land as a right.

 

Reading between the lines I'm guessing the CPS decided there was little chance of a conviction under Wildlife and Countryside act and  successor legislation and interpretation of "disturb" and "reckless".

Edited July 16, 2021 by openspaceman

[Anno]

The original report states 'active' so within the breeding process.

[openspaceman]

46 minutes ago, Anno said:

The original report states 'active' so within the breeding process.

That's another ambiguous remark, define active and breeding process.

 

It's a schedule one bird I expect so reckless comes in to play if it is disturbing nesting.

[Anno]

1 minute ago, openspaceman said:

That's another ambiguous remark, define active and breeding process.

 

It's a schedule one bird I expect so reckless comes in to play if it is disturbing nesting.

Some birds, known as ‘schedule 1 birds’, eg barn owls, have extra legal protection. For these bird species it’s also an offence to do the following, either intentionally or by not taking enough care:

• disturb them while they’re nesting, building a nest, in or near a nest that contains their young
• disturb their dependent young

You could get an unlimited fine and up to 6 months in prison for each offence if you’re found guilty.