Schedule one breeders (1 Viewer)

[metcow333]

Hi

I've started this thread just to move the discussion away from the yorkshire birding thread as it seems to be annoying some (all?) of the posters on there, who fairly enough just want to hear about local birds. I still think it's interesting and worthwhile discussing, although I accept i may be in a majority of one. I hope its taken as intended as a discussion rather than as a personal attack on anyone.

James, for what it's worth, I thought Andy's post about Barn owls only referred to the magazine article, and was suggesting that the sites used in a 'where to find' section would probably be away from breeding grounds, or would have been checked (or already publicised) with RSPB/wildlife trusts reserves before recieving such publicity, so wasn't really relevant to the discussion regarding the birds local to York.

I'm not sure how much I agree with you in terms of SEO's and LEO's needing more protection than Barn owls, given that parts of Yorkshire have very important breeding densities of Barn Owl certainly in a national (and possibly European?) context, whilst SEO's, I think, have other more important breeding areas and LEO's are fairly widespread and highly secretive, especially as Barn owl populations have taken a hammering over the last few winters.

Beside this, whilst I understand your points about the Schedule 1 breeding species, and to an extent Doc Reed's previous point about the 'law being an ass' on this issue, I find it very difficult to comment on lists like this when we will never know the full extent of the situation with many of these breeding species, due to the very nature of the law. Given this, my preference is to try and keep news dissemination to a minimum on schedule 1 species in the breeding season, especially on big forums readily available to anonymous users and anyone capable of using Google.

Cheers
Ollie

(Ps, i'll try and stop the pedantry, but 'l' and 's' are a long way apart on a keyboard)

 

[David Tate]

Hi Ollie

Just to show your are not in a minority of 1 here's my take on Schedule 1:

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 gives extra protection to 79 bird species which are listed in Schedule 1. Since then Capercaillie was added in 2001. The data used to determine which species to list came primarily from the first Atlas of Breeding Birds (1968-72) and the annual reports of the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (RBBP) which began in 1973. So the informing data is 30 to 40 years old and today the list appears to have 4 main areas of concern.

1. Many cold winters occured during the late 1960s and 1970s and several sub-artcic breeders began to colonise the UK eg Snowy Owl, Lapland Bunting and Shorelark. Over 10% of the birds on Schedule 1 belong to this group. Some on the list may never have bred in recent times eg. Gyr Falcon and Velvet Scoter. Revision of this group is long overdue.

2. Before 1981 it would have been difficult to anticipate that by 2012 the UK climate would be notably warmer. Although some southern species such as Bee-eater, Purple Heron and Hoopoe are listed other recent arrivals from the south and east such as Common Crane, Egrets, a raft of Warbler species and probably many more to come, are not listed and therefore do not benefit from the Schedule 1 protection. A revison here is even more essential.

3.Many rare breeding ducks eg Pintail, Gargany, Wigeon and Pochard have protection in the breeding season (Schedule 2) but may be shot in the open season. This mixed message could do with revision.

4.Perhaps the most frequent criticism about the Schedule 1 list appears to be that it contains species which were deserving special protection in 1981 but since then have become much more common - eg Kingfisher, Barn Owl, Wood Lark and some raptor species.

In the case of Barn Owls they suffered from a loss of hunting habitat and nest sites during the 1980s and early 1990s. More recent agri-environmental schemes and the placement of nest boxes (est.25000 by mid 1990s) have helped to double the population. The species has been moved from the Red to the Amber list of birds of conservation concern and the BTOs Barn Owl Monitoring programme was terminated last year. I used to help monitor the 70 known Barn Owl nest sites in the area between York, Selby and Pocklington which probably amounted to 90% of the total. From this we could determine a reliable population figure but there are now probably twice the number of boxes in the area and the task has become too great to continue in full. The national population is about 4000 prs and above in good years. It would be more if we stopped driving cars. I'm sure that some eggs/young may be taken but after 9 years monitoring I have no evidence and I do not believe that Barn Owls require Shedule 1 protection.

Of course much of the above could have been solved if the original legislators had added a clause saying that the list would be reviewed, say every 4 or 5 years which is what happens with the RBBs and the Conservation lists. As it is it seems unlikely that any Parliamentary time will be made availble for a revision so the list will become more antiquated with every passing year.

Still, the law is the law and every year I have to apply for a seperate licence for each Schedule 1 species studied.

Cheers - Dave

 

[James Thomas]

Thanks Dave, a great first post and certainly sums up my view on the subject, far more eloquent to boot!

A couple of further points;
1. There are always local considerations that prejudice our opinions. My view that Woodlark requires more protection than Barn Owls is case in point.
2. Olly, I can't see where your SEO v BO argument comes from, the 2009 Yorkshire Bird Report mentions 11 SEO breeding pairs in the whole of Yorkshire. Compare that to the data above from the York area alone. In addtion the YBR 2009 mentions 9 displaying males at a single site, two females also present. All disappeared in May. Two pairs of LEO also disappeared from the site at the same time. Can't see Barn Owls under that type of pressure.

 

[metcow333]

hi james

i was thinking along the lines of barn owl being in a key breeding area in e yorkshire on a national scale, compared to the yorkshire population of seo's being relatively peripheral. However, had a bit of a second thought, as if I'm going to contextualise I might as well do it in a wider European, or global context, in which case Barn owls are obviously the far commoner bird.

 

[metcow333]

o and cheers for the post david, really interesting.

 

[James Thomas]

hi james

i was thinking along the lines of barn owl being in a key breeding area in e yorkshire on a national scale, compared to the yorkshire population of seo's being relatively peripheral. However, had a bit of a second thought, as if I'm going to contextualise I might as well do it in a wider European, or global context, in which case Barn owls are obviously the far commoner bird.

You neglected to contextualise in national terms as well.

 

[DOC REED]

You neglected to contextualise in national terms as well.

Ok, I will throw my spanner in!I think 'context' is the important word;Barn owls;i've been posting on here from time began about them at Redhouse,and they are still there!I think a subforum like this is even more likely to highlight where they are to eggers etc.
SEOs;found a probable breeding pair in Pennines this past year,Jim knows 'cos I told him in confidence;Jim may have posted my observation later to local reporter, but neither he nor i did at time.The seo's at Poppleton have not been disturbed,many have enjoyed them, I just don't see what the problem is?They will not breed there,my view is enjoy whilst we can,pick up Iceland gull on way in!!

I just don't get these comments about schedule 1 birds, to people who love and adore birds,in february/march.

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

I just don't get these comments about schedule 1 birds, to people who love and adore birds,in february/march.

Some Schedule 1 breeders are already on eggs and young by then.

Difficult topic to be safely discussed in a publicly accessible area.

 

[jailer]

Ollie..... an observation... as I see it..
I fully appreciated your concern for Schedule 1 birds as, I'm sure, did others. What wasn't, (appreciated) was the way in which you admonished Doc in his offer to give info to a known and trusted postee on this forum.
It's been interesting in the least to note your change in tone with the introduction of this new thread. I hope it was as a belated realisation of your own, well.... rather "vigorous" manner to older (?) and equally as experienced birders. In a nutshell ..... "it's not what you said, it's the way that you said it". I've absolutely no doubt that you didn't start with the intention of "bruising" anyone but........ ?
Regards Jay :t:

 

[metcow333]

Hi Jay

I started the new thread because I thought James Thomas and others raised some interesting points in abstract that I mildly disagreed with, and thought was worthwhile discussing, whilst trying to move away from some of the invective on the main thread. As some of those issues have raised up again, I'll make a few points.

I don't agree that what I said was particularly vigorous, I just pointed out that a public forum isn't the place to discuss species like this, but that if you really wanted to, do it in private. The way I see it, no-one here posts up there mobile phone numbers, quite rightly, because although the vast majority of people on here are likeable, friendly, decent people, in this scenario, you have no idea who is going to see it, or what they might do with that information. I think this is comparable to the breeding birds situation. Again (to stretch a metaphor), if a friend of mine wanted to pass on my phone number to someone who they knew and trusted because they wanted to get hold of me, I would much rather it was done privately or face to face, than via facebook or a forum. Its not that I think the intended recipient is unworthy or shouldn't receive the information.

Doc;on this thread, up until your post, no-one had made any mention of any specific birds. It was merely an abstracted discussion, that thanks to some good posts from Dave and James, I was enjoying. I don't see how this causes any problems.

Secondly, whilst I realise I may come across a bit abrupt at times, I don't think I have made a single personal attack on here, whilst I have accused of being hypocritical for various non-sensical reasons and had it implied that I am not an 'actual birder'. I don't think I have been overly unreasonable in my response to these.

Anyway, back to subject. James, I'm not sure I did neglect national context. I was thinking along these lines:
If a pair of rare breeding birds are in the core area of there range, they are surely of key conservation significance, as that is likely to be the most stable of breeding areas for them, and they are therefore deserving of high levels of protection. In contrast, a bird that is on the edge of their range may fail for a variety of reasons, and would perhaps have less conservation significance than if it were in a core range. I accept this is a pretty broad sketch of the scenario, and it would probably be different should a bird be expanding/retracting its range.

I don't have enough experience at the frontline of conservation with these species to be overly confident of my being right, just trying to show that I hadn't neglected to contextualise in national terms. Maybe someone with more experience could comment with the attitude RSPB/Wildlife trust take to different levels of protection of birds in and outside of core ranges? Maybe they take a blanket approach and try and treat them all equally.

 

[metcow333]

David, are you allowed to shoot non-breeding Garganey in this country? I don't know, but just wanted to clarify

 

[The Rovin' Outlaw]

I wanted to come in on this and I want to say something without rubbing anyone up the wrong way.
As far as I can see there have always been egg collectors and some of them are very good at it, as good at what they do as any of us. We have to be careful not to make things easy for them, but they are quite capable of finding their own birds just like we used to.
I think the bigger problem comes from disturbance. I found the short eared owls near york by accident. I was looking for the gulls and followed the crowd. It seemed half the village had turned out to see them. This is fine, and I believe they have not yet been disturbed and are likely migrant birds anyway who will breed far north of here.
I was talking to one of the wardens from Salthome this morning and he told me their long eared owls have gone, disturbed by birdwatchers.
The thing is that there is a new generation of birdwatchers about now. Birdwatchers who put the photograph before the bird.
Its not really all that suprising when you turn on your television for six weeks in spring and autumn and Chris Packham and company are showing everyone its OK to take chicks from nests or place cameras a foot away from a nest. Even at one stage encouraging people to stick lengths of drain pipe into badger setts. They never seem to disturb anything do they.
I have read the postings on here for years and 99.9% of posters are great people.
The guys here are very good and have great and valid points. I for one would hate to see anybody get so riled that they stop posting or sharing info and advice because I for one have benefitted from their contributions.
All we can do is advise people to birdwatch responsibly.
I have seen a lot of birds over the last few years because of sites like this, and I don't want to see a time when information is supressed or kept to some private forum that I have no access to. I hate some things that the RSPB does, but it doesn't stop me believing its a good cause, and I pay my subs.
I have never seen inside a nest in my life and I have no intention of ever doing so but some people do.
And when you turn on your television and see men absailing down cliffs to take chicks out of a peregrine's nest, stuff them into a bag, climb down, handle them, measure them, ring them, stuff them back into the bag climb back up and put them back into the nest while the parent birds screech around their heads, all with the promise that "THIS DOESN'T CAUSE THEM ANY STRESS AT ALL". You cant be suprised when someone wants to get just a couple of yards closer to get a better photograph.
Im not having a go at everyone who takes photographs of birds (I do it myself). Most of them have been birdwatching longer than I and most of them have cameras that are more powerful than my binoculars and most of them are top quality birdwatchers who would never try to get too close.
But the odd one or two aren't, and that's where the problem lies.

 

[David Tate]

Hi Ollie

My mistake - Gargany are not on the legal quarry list. However, I still think it would be worth reviewing the legality of shooting some of the Schedule 1 (S1) duck species a few weeks after they have fledged. Compared with Barn Owls the national number of pairs is very low eg Pintail 30, Wigeon 144 and Goldeneye 187. But I don't believe that this is the main focus of the thread you started.

The main issue seems to be should location details about S1 species be posted on open forums etc during the breeding season? As far as I know it is not illegal to pass on information about SI birds. However, publishers of bird reports use the voluntary 'site confidential' when describing breeding locations and others believe this should be the practice in all forms of public communication. The problem is that a few of the SI species now breed in much larger numbers than they did in 1981 and some people are no longer concerned about passing on site details for these birds. This then brings them into conflict with the 'non-disclosures'.

Woodlark is a S1 species which has caused site disclosure disagreements on the Yorkshire thread in the past. The national population was estimated at 200-450 pairs in 1968-72 and so it was listed in SI. Since then there has been an increase to 3064 prs. and as a result Woodlark was recently downgraded from the Red to the Amber list of birds of conservation concern.

Like most, I'm aware of a certain Yorkshire 'confidential' Woodlark site. If you guess correctly and put the name of this confidential site and Woodlark into Google up comes many photos of Woodlark taken there during the breeding season and perhaps more surprisingly articles from newspapers, Natural England, the land owner and others giving inforamtion about the birds at the site. So site 'not really confidential'.

If the S1 list was reviewed the species which are now much more secure such as Woodlark and Barn Owl could be removed and replaced with the likes of LEOs which have a much smaller and probably decling population. The process might also bring more respect for the list.

The issue about how people behave once they approach the breeding territory, feeding ground or roost etc of any bird is another matter. It has more to do with understanding and conscience than any list, fact or figure.

Cheers - Dave

 

[schiffornis]

Hi Ollie

The main issue seems to be should location details about S1 species be posted on open forums etc during the breeding season? As far as I know it is not illegal to pass on information about SI birds. However, publishers of bird reports use the voluntary 'site confidential' when describing breeding locations and others believe this should be the practice in all forms of public communication. The problem is that a few of the SI species now breed in much larger numbers than they did in 1981 and some people are no longer concerned about passing on site details for these birds. This then brings them into conflict with the 'non-disclosures'.

The issue about how people behave once they approach the breeding territory, feeding ground or roost etc of any bird is another matter. It has more to do with understanding and conscience than any list, fact or figure.

Cheers - Dave

Good points Dave.

Within my job we often have to consult with a number of bird clubs/protected species officers etc regarding certain Schedule 1 species.

As the reports I write enter the public domain as planning application support documents (technical appendicies, ES Chapter etc) we have to be very careful with the information we disclose. Anyone can request a planning document from their local council I believe. In order to get round this for Schedule 1 birds - (we have to report them in our findings if they are present) - we provide the information in a confidential annex, this is only available to a select few people and not made public (e.g. Natural England/RSPB/Planner). This is the same for several other species/groups e.g. badger.

When a development has the potential to cause disturbance to a schedule 1 breeder there is a whole raft of stuff i have to do in order to ensure they are not breaching the law (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended). The threat of fines/imprisonment etc seem to do the job and I've only had 1 developer ignore my advice - he got a huge fine and lost his job.... if only birders/photographers listened....

 

[northernloon]

Not birds

Andy, my experience of bat conservation is not good. Many roofers and builders simply ignore evidence of occupation and fail to comply with the legislation. Hard to prove after the fact and they get away with it :C

Ken

 

[schiffornis]

Andy, my experience of bat conservation is not good. Many roofers and builders simply ignore evidence of occupation and fail to comply with the legislation. Hard to prove after the fact and they get away with it :C

Ken

Ken, you are right, unfortunately this is a big issue too. I think what, the above 10/12 posts clarifies is the major need for an update of the W&CA (1981 was a long time ago!)

 

[joespy]

"I don't think I have made a single personal attack on here"

Ollie,
I'm with jailer here,it would appear that the haste and content with which you replied to Doc's post when he offered to PM Gary, implies he's the subject of your "reminder". You're hiding behind your own invective young man, if you think other.
Which leads me to believe you're enjoying your degree course in Politics........maybe time to display some of the Philosophy....

Cheers Joe :t:

 

[metcow333]

"I don't think I have made a single personal attack on here"

Ollie,
I'm with jailer here,it would appear that the haste and content with which you replied to Doc's post when he offered to PM Gary, implies he's the subject of your "reminder". You're hiding behind your own invective young man, if you think other.
Which leads me to believe you're enjoying your degree course in Politics........maybe time to display some of the Philosophy....

Cheers Joe :t:

Hello old man

I wasn't attempting to deny that the comment was a response to the one made by Doc, just that it wasn't a 'personal attack' along the lines of the name-calling and implied slurs that have been used by others on here at times. It was a genuine comment (if that makes any sense), not an attempt to have a dig at someone on a personal level.

You'll be pleased to hear the degree is now long gone (several months) and I did rather better in the philosophy part than the politics:smoke:.;

Cheers
Ollie

 

[northernloon]

I've tried and failed to find an official list of Schedule 1 species on the JNCC and DEFRA websites. Maybe I'm just rubbish. I remember Andy posted a link about this time last year. If anyone has a link handy I'd be grateful

 

[birdieboy123]

I've tried and failed to find an official list of Schedule 1 species on the JNCC and DEFRA websites. Maybe I'm just rubbish. I remember Andy posted a link about this time last year. If anyone has a link handy I'd be grateful

On the RSPB website