birds of prey

[Guest]

.....................................................

[Guest]

Smart move, Jimmy.  

 

I'm sure that there's more can be done here, particularly about the conservationists 'incitement' to kill birds / birds of prey on National TV. I think I'll have a wander over to the RSPB and BTO Websites.....

 

 

[Guest]

I've a reply-of-sorts from the RSPB. Seems the programme was repeated on Sunday and a 'disclaimer' (on protection?)  went out at the end of it.

 

Waiting further info.  

[Guest]

RSPB emails on Eagle Owl, earliest one first:

 

 

From Bruno, Sun 20/11/2005 15:55

 

On Wednesday 16th November, at 8pm, BBC2 featured a programme on  European Eagle Owls in Britain.

 

I found it most disturbing that your representative, and that of the BTO, were openly hostile towards this bird and plainly incited its persecution by misinforming possibly millions of viewers that the  bird  was not British and therefore had no protection under the Wildlife & Countryside Act and could be  shot  without legal repercussions.

 

This is hypocrisy - from representatives of bird conservation groups which campaign against persecution of birds and wildlife crime?

 

Your representative has committed a criminal act. Also if it were a  human rather than a bird, he would also be guilty of racism.

 

Please advise what steps you intend to take in correcting this misiniformation and in disciplining Mr Orr-Ewing.

 

Thanks, Bruno

   

 

 

 

From Ian Peters, RSPB,

 

The programme was extremely disjointed and perhaps, a little confusing so it would be helpful if you could express your precise concerns about what was said. One thing I can tell you is that it is not conclusively known that the breeding pair are from captive origins therefore, the BOU statement about the birds having no protection is incorrect.

 

Nevertheless, the evidence that the birds are genuine immigrants is far less compelling than was presented in this programme and I would be more than happy to discuss the details with you.

 

Please note: a disclaimer was aired at the end of the Sunday repeat clarifying the protection point.

 

Regards, Ian Peters - Wildlife Advisor

   

 

 

 

From Bruno, Mon 21st Nov 2005  1:08pm

 

Thank you for your prompt reply. I had heard previously that eagle owls had an extremely fearsome reputation (the only one I had seen previously was a captive bird, and on TV) and on hearing that they  were present in the wild in Britain I made a point to tune in to the programme. I must admit that I liked the bird, but was shocked to learn that this pair had already been persecuted (a whole season's eggs smashed) and even more shocked to hear 'open season' declared on the species.

 

My main complaint / concern was (1) the general negative attitude of the professional 'bird' organisations toward this bird's presence and  (2) the unbelievable statement that they could be persecuted with impunity - the legal term is 'incitement'... and I'm sure that that is wrong morally and legally.

 

Protection under the Act applies to all birds, including visitors, and as it is an incorporated European Directive, they are protected throughout the EU. This is also a native European species. It is therefore quite wrong to refer to 'not British, shoot to kill'. Nothing surviving in the wild can be said to be 'captive' irrespective of its origin. Early re-introductions of birds of prey by your own organisation fall into the same categories. I specifically recall a pair of 'Scottish' Ospreys coming from Scandinavian stock. Not only does 'not British' smack of eugenics, it is contrary to the laws governing natural evolution of species. It is a constantly changing world, global warming being just one driver of change.

 

I did not see the repeat programme and was unaware of any disclaimer of ill-advised statements that should not have been made in the first place... it hardly fits with Organisational ethos or mission. I would suggest that there is an urgent need for a press statement confirming that this bird is a protected species, to leave the public in no doubt that they should not interfere in any way with this bird... or with  any other for that matter... and an apology for misleading the public  wouldn't be amiss either.

 

Thanks, Bruno

 

 

 

 

From Ian Peters, RSPB,

 

Personally, I thought this was possibly the worst programme ever to appear under the Natural World and could have been dealt with by Countryfile. The entire programme seemed to start off with the assumption that this was all normal and any view counteracting that point was wrong. The BOU statement on protection should have been checked by the BBC but I imagine it was the RSPB that corrected this issue although the disclaimer was not exactly well made.

 

The evidence was not only presented in a selective way, there were statements simply plucked out of the air without any supporting evidence (I am not sure this was entirely the fault of Roy Dennis). The comment that eagle owls were persecuted out of existence in the UK was a good example because there is no documentary evidence of this kind. Even persecution is likely to be mentioned somewhere because the attitudes to wildlife were so different at the time.

 

In addition, the issue of birds moving over large distances is mostly a vertical migration (the Swiss birds) and juvenile dispersal (the UK example. This is not true migration and has important implications when it comes to a sea crossing even though the birds would be capable of making the distance.

 

Regards, Ian

 

 

 

From Bruno, Mon 21st Nov 2005   3:42pm

 

With respect to the views expressed in your last email, you did ask me to express my concerns clearly. These were : (1) the general negative attitude of both professional organisations toward this bird's presence and (2) the unbelievable statement that they could be persecuted with impunity.(shot!)

 

Again, with respect, you didn't address either of these.

 

And again, I 'suggested' that clear rebuttal of 'open season' on these birds is urgently required. And that hasn't been addressed either.

 

What steps are being taken to publicly rectify this sorry affair?

 

Thanks, Bruno

 

 

 

 

From Ian Peters, RSPB, Mon Nov 21st 2005 4pm.

 

I am sorry but my original reply sets out that the BOU representative was wrong and the BBC issued a disclaimer when the programme was aired on Sunday. I admit this was not exactly well made but then again, the entire programme seems badly researched and poorly edited. As for a Press release, is there really any value in starting a war of words with the various organisations involved? I do not want to seem overly critical of Roy Dennis because he has done some wonderful things but he is one man looking for support of a preconceived idea. There would be no value in attacking someone like this because the RSPB would be in a David and Goliath situation. As for the BOU, their representative made the erroneous statement about protection and I would have thought that would be beneficial for the counter to come from that direction. Had Duncan or Julian made the statement then I fully expect they would admit the mistake.

 

I did not see the RSPB comments as negative although they were portrayed as such due to the ensuing content of the programme. At best, I thought the RSPB position was cautious but it was easy to take caution in a different context when the rest of the programme countermands that view. If we put it that way then surely it was clear that Roy Dennis and the MOD representative were the only UK people that were positive about the birds.

 

Regards, Ian

 

 

[Guest]

Discovered from above emails, I'd got the 'other' organisation wrong. I'd emailed the BTO instead of the BOU. Tried BOU but out-of-office-reply says they are on holiday until 5th December, so unless its an enforced holiday away from the mess they've created, reckon things will have gone cold by then.  :-/

 

 

[jimmy white]

youve certainly did some brilliant work,  bruno , and at the moment , , im taking it all in. i have e mailed defra , no response so far to the following e mail,,,,

 dear sir, after watching the most interesting programme on bbc 2 on wed, about eagle owls.  i am confused at the remark made by mr ewan,, rspb. concerning these birds being not wanted here, as they dont belong here. yet in the 2004 wildlife and countryside act, section 27,it states that if a bird is born in the wild here, it certainly belongs here. i wonder if you would be kind enough, to enlighten me on this subject  thanking you , yours faithfully  james white

[Guest]

Left - Owl - Arron - Speight - having a lovely in the sun sky in South Spain  

[Guest]

 ;)Me and Hawk           in Costa Del Sol.      

[jimmy white]

some brilliant photos speight

[snowy]

well done bruno & jim, top work done! keep them on their toes!

[Guest]

some brilliant photos speight

 

Thanks Jimmy.

[jimmy white]

i have a strong feeling when the rspb are backed in to a corner, they are experts at wriggling there way out   WHICH SHOULDNT BE

[Guest]

 

 

[Guest]

 

 

[jimmy white]

wow, some photos speight, do you think that pigeon got away? if it did, the batch it was driven out of, would have dived for cover , hitting anything in there way, and few would have survived unscathed

[Webmaster]

Message forwared to me from Jimmy_White for submission:

 

Subject: eagle owls

 

dear sir, after watching the most interesting programme on bbc2 on wed, about eagle owls. i am confused at the remark made by mr ewan ,rspb.  concerning these birds  being not wanted here as they dont belong  here.and yet in the 2004 wild life and countryside act, section 27, it states that if a bird is born in the wild here, it certainly belongs here. i wonder if you would be kind enough to enlighten me,on this subject.     thanking you , yours faithfully james white.

 

-------------

 

Dear James,

 

yes, I believe I can answer that question.  Firstly, I'm not surprised at the confusion this programme has caused you, as it was not very clear.

 

Just to clarify, not all birds that breed in the wild are 'wild birds' in the legal sense, and that being the case, one could in practice kill, harm, destroy etc. these species without fear of prosecution.

 

Defra's policy concerning what constitutes a 'wild bird' and what doesn't, partly follows guidance from the BOU (British Ornithological Union).  It is acknowledged that no genuine record of a truly wild Eagle Owl has appeared in Britain (i.e. its not on BOU's Category 'A','B' or 'C').  There are, of course, a few escapees/ released birds about the country, including the breeding birds shown in the programme, and there have been a number of historic claims (personally, I would regard these as largely referring to Long-eared Owl).  So, from the BOU's perspective, these Eagle Owls are not 'wild birds'.

 

Not looking good so far, however...

 

The legal definition of a 'wild bird' is that provided in s.27 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981.  It is under this Law that I expect that Defra could accept that these Eagle Owls are 'wild birds'.  This is because the definition of 'wild birds' was amended by the 'Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004', changing the definition to any species living anywhere within the EU (even if it doesn't occur in Britain !)  So, although not native to Britain, but are widespread over Continental Europe, the Eagle Owls in Yorkshire are protected, and their eggs, nests etc. cannot be destroyed, damaged etc. - despite what Steve Dudley of the BTO said on the programme.

 

These days, Britain plays host to thousands of non-native species, some detrimental (e.g. Japanese Knot-weed), some with mixed affects to our environment (e.g. Buddleia) and some are quite benign (e.g. Little Owls - yes, these were introduced !).  This is why Law and policy has different attitudes to different species.

 

At present, Defra does not have a policy on Eagle Owls, and I don't think Defra intends to make one soon.  Doubtlessly interesting these Eagle Owls are, in the grand scheme of things they are considered to have negligible impact on the local environment, and consequently are not at the top of the list of things Defra needs to consider right now.

 

Rest assured though, if anyone wished to take or harm the Eagle Owls, they would need to apply for a licence, possibly from our team (National Wildlife Management Team, under guidance from Defra policy, the European Wildlife Division).

 

Killing, harming, damaging nests & eggs etc of these Eagle Owls could be considered an offence, and could result in a heavy fine or imprisonment.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Ivan Lakin (Wildlife Adviser & Ecologist)

Defra's National Wildlife Management Team

[Webmaster]

Photo forwarded to me by Shadow:

[carl]

Is that a pigeon loft in the back ground.The birds will love the hawk

[jimmy white]

e mail back to mr lakin,

 thank you kindly for replying to my e,mail, on the question of eagle owls. i am still wondering what is" native to brittain". i note that the b.o.u. dont recognise these birds as" wild birds", but my question now is, surely the offspring of these birds, whether from escapees or not, if they are born in the wild in brittain, i would have thought that they would become brittish wild birds, and treated so.

i also cannot understand why defra dont have a policy for these birds, and what negligible impact they would have on the local or countryside environment, as they seem to feed mainly on rabits, which are plentyfull. as far as i can see, they dont seem to  pose a danger to other birds. i must admit to being fairly shocked at what steve dudley said about them, allthough thankfully you have corrected that, in your e.mail,.

i wonder if you could enlighten me as to what danger they pose to other birds or environment.  and when you say they are "not wild,"surely the youngsters born here are" wild ". meanwhile i thank you for the information you sent, but would just like these points clarified.     yours faithfully  james white

[westy]

yesterday i saw a crow attacking a sparrow hawk in the sky

[Guest shadow]

Is that a pigeon loft in the back ground.The birds will love the hawk

The harris hawk came in with my young birds one night and the only way to get rid of it was to catch it by waving a piece of meat and it flew down and landed on my arm it was a tame one which had escaped it was returned to the hawk trust the same day and they had to find the owner. my wife sent the photo in did not know she had that is why there was no text.

 

[Guest]

The harris hawk came in with my young birds one night and it was a tame one which had escaped  

 

Maybe your alterego, Shadowhawk, should have kept the bird.  ;D

 

Would have loved to see it out exercising with the youngsters.  ;D   ;D

 

And coming down with them.  ;D   ;D    ;D

 

Seems to back up earlier post (from Hyacinth) that this bird is territorial and could keep your area hawk-free... and cats, dogs, etc

 

 

 

[Guest]

Brilliant result from DEFRA, Jimmy, on the eagle owls.  ;D

 

Sounds like an enforced holiday for the BOU right enough. Maybe more than one email waiting for them coming back to work tomorrow.  

 

 

 

 

[snowy]

there is an awfull lot of escapees birds of prey, just happened to pop onto this site by accident.

http://www.parrotmag.com/lost_found.php

and thats just a parrot website

[Webmaster]

Poll Result from: BBC Peregrine / Pigeon Chase 7/6/04

 

Poll ran 1st - 7th September 2005:

 

Yes I saw the Programme - (8 votes)

Thought it a homing pigeon? - (7 votes)

No I didnt think it was a homing pigeon - (1 votes)

Did the chase upset you? - (5 votes)

No the chase didn’t upset me - (3 votes)

Got over seeing it? - (0 votes)

No I haven't got over seeing it - (8 votes)