The RANT thread (often contains fruity language)

[Jaded]

Why oh why do people always cut down trees in the middle of the nesting season?

IIRC that's an offence.  When I worked in civil engineering, we had to plan clearance works for the winter, 'cos you ain't allowed to do it in the summer 'cos birds.Quite right too.

You should not be removing trees during nesting season.  It is an offence to intentionally damage or destroy the active nest of any wild bird - Section 1 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981.

Unfortunately this has led to the scourge of developers netting trees, to prevent nesting.   Something our planning committee takes a very dim view of.  If trees do have to be removed - and we do everything we can to deter that approach - we routinely recommend conditions which include no netting and removal out of nesting season.

We've upset our Tree Officer by commenting on every tree removal application that doesn't have a valid reason. We've declared a Climate Emergency as has the District Council. Vanity tree removal doesn't sit well with those declarations.

[Regulator]

Why oh why do people always cut down trees in the middle of the nesting season?

IIRC that's an offence.  When I worked in civil engineering, we had to plan clearance works for the winter, 'cos you ain't allowed to do it in the summer 'cos birds.Quite right too.

You should not be removing trees during nesting season.  It is an offence to intentionally damage or destroy the active nest of any wild bird - Section 1 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981.

Unfortunately this has led to the scourge of developers netting trees, to prevent nesting.   Something our planning committee takes a very dim view of.  If trees do have to be removed - and we do everything we can to deter that approach - we routinely recommend conditions which include no netting and removal out of nesting season.

We've upset our Tree Officer by commenting on every tree removal application that doesn't have a valid reason. We've declared a Climate Emergency as has the District Council. Vanity tree removal doesn't sit well with those declarations.

We've been very liberal with the TPOs.   

[Jasmine]

Why oh why do people always cut down trees in the middle of the nesting season?

IIRC that's an offence.  When I worked in civil engineering, we had to plan clearance works for the winter, 'cos you ain't allowed to do it in the summer 'cos birds.Quite right too.

You should not be removing trees during nesting season.  It is an offence to intentionally damage or destroy the active nest of any wild bird - Section 1 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981.

Unfortunately this has led to the scourge of developers netting trees, to prevent nesting.   Something our planning committee takes a very dim view of.  If trees do have to be removed - and we do everything we can to deter that approach - we routinely recommend conditions which include no netting and removal out of nesting season.

The part in bold isn't quite the offence, and it is relevant because removing trees during nesting season isn't, in itself, an offence.  The provision in paragraph 1 (1) is that 'intentional' destruction of a nest of eggs is an offence; however the provision in paragraph 1 (5) is that the intentional or reckless disturbance of a nesting bird or its nest is an offence. It is lawful to cut or remove trees if the person doing so has determined that there are no nests (hence the netting). It is entirely possible to (get a suitably qualified person to*) make an inspection of relevant trees to ensure there are no nests before any work is undertaken.

The reason that this is important is because although 'nesting season' is generally understood to be March to August, some birds nest outside this period. Using the blanket concept of cutting is ok before March or after August can still lead to an offence being committed.

* It is entirely possible to 'disturb' a nest by trying to do this

[fuzzy]

Is The Pearsons Arms still operating? Just back from the beach and adjacent to where a few just off th beach huts chalets were situated.
Dad used to take me in there to get a Vimto whilst he grabbed a pint and a Babycham for Mum during our inumerable fantastic day trips.
The Pearsons Arms used to be run by a member of the Kray family. I had no idea who the Krays were when I was a small but, I remember the landlord and the family resemblance was spooky.

Yep, still there - although it is now a poncey gastropub (upstairs is a proper restaurant, but one that's not nearly as good as it thinks it is).

Good place for star spotting - I've seen Suggs, Fay Ripley, Ray Winstone and Donald Sutherland in the bar (on separate occasions, alas).

[Regulator]

Why oh why do people always cut down trees in the middle of the nesting season?

IIRC that's an offence.  When I worked in civil engineering, we had to plan clearance works for the winter, 'cos you ain't allowed to do it in the summer 'cos birds.Quite right too.

You should not be removing trees during nesting season.  It is an offence to intentionally damage or destroy the active nest of any wild bird - Section 1 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981.

Unfortunately this has led to the scourge of developers netting trees, to prevent nesting.   Something our planning committee takes a very dim view of.  If trees do have to be removed - and we do everything we can to deter that approach - we routinely recommend conditions which include no netting and removal out of nesting season.

The part in bold isn't quite the offence, and it is relevant because removing trees during nesting season isn't, in itself, an offence.  The provision in paragraph 1 (1) is that 'intentional' destruction of a nest of eggs is an offence; however the provision in paragraph 1 (5) is that the intentional or reckless disturbance of a nesting bird or its nest is an offence. It is lawful to cut or remove trees if the person doing so has determined that there are no nests (hence the netting). It is entirely possible to (get a suitably qualified person to*) make an inspection of relevant trees to ensure there are no nests before any work is undertaken.

The reason that this is important is because although 'nesting season' is generally understood to be March to August, some birds nest outside this period. Using the blanket concept of cutting is ok before March or after August can still lead to an offence being committed.

* It is entirely possible to 'disturb' a nest by trying to do this

Err - I'm not sure why you're trying to correct me as Section 1 (which is what I quoted) covers a range of things in its subsections...  including intentionally damaging or destroying an active nest.

[Jasmine]

Because you are stating that the offence is intentionally damaging a nest, and therefore you shouldn't cut down trees. There's much wider implication of Section 1 of the W&CA that is missed by the "don't cut trees and hedges in nesting season" spiel. It isn't just about the nest, or about intentionally damaging it. It is entirely possible to unintentionally damage a nest, or disturb a bird associated with that nest (it doesn't need to be on the nest at the time), and to be committing an offence if what you were doing could be reasonably described as reckless.

It is important because the message has become "don't cut trees in nesting season" rather than "don't disturb birds at nest". There's plenty of planning applications that allow works to continue where birds may have nested in structures other than trees, or have allowed constructions in coastal areas where the light and noise prevents rafting behaviours of coastal species. Lots of people clear gutters or do repointing work in the summer that can disturb nesting. People walking across open countryside or on beaches, particularly with off-lead dogs, has led to the decline in ground nesting birds. "Don't cut down trees in nesting season" is an easy rhetoric that doesn't necessarily lead to better environmental outcomes.

[markcjagar]

[Pigeons - i.e. flying rats - are fair game to me]

[CAMRAMan]

North Warwickshire Landowners: My walk yesterday was marred by poor right-of-way problems. One was a very dangerous situation where cows were in a field with young calves. The cows had horns and once they saw us were snorting, then hoofing at the ground - like bulls do at bullfights - warning us not to approach. We didn't and had to turn back. There was no warning given of this situation. I'm fairly sure we would have been gored had we persisted. Another example was a raised stile where the steps up to it had broken long ago. The access was heavily overgrown with brambles and there was a permanent 'bull in field' sign nailed to the stile. The message to walkers was very clear: fuck off! There were other examples that made that area very unattractive for future visits. The paths we followed did not have the tell-tale signs of mass use by other walkers as seen elsewhere in Warwickshire - and I've been walking recently during the lockdown; solo and accompanied abiding by the regulations. I've reported all this to the highways authority, but don't expect much from them.

[rafletcher]

To be fair, I don’t believe there’s any requirement for a farmer to warn walkers about their livestock. It just requires - as you demonstrated - common sense. Broken stiles are likely to be a parish council issue in the first instance.

[L CC]

There's nothing illegal about keeping cattle with horns- as long as you don't mix them with cattle without horns. They don't charge unless they're spooked. Don't get between parent and offspring, keep walking. They can probably smell your fear. You're best to ignore them. Unless you have a dog, they often really don't like that and it's only polite to detour.

Bull in field is also OK- unless he's in with his ladies. Generally the bull is on his own (or with his drinking buddies) most of the time and stays in a relatively small paddock. All he'll do is loaf about eating. He needs a sign as it's his gaff, and people like to be forewarned. When he goes in with the girls it's for the farm equivalent of an 18-30 holiday and only lasts for a few weeks, he's exhausted when he gets back 'home'.

[ElyDave]

I'm with you fboab, I've never not walked through a field becasue of cows, just stick to the path and keep an eye out for them, they tend to amble away from you, give them time and they take it. I might go round the edges of the field rather than straight through.  I've only once had a sticky situation where I was effectively herding the cows down a path I was running along until we came to a fence at the end.  My gate was in that fence.  They all just turned round and went back the way they came down the bank from the footpath about 10ft away from me. 

[Kim]

I treat cattle with the suspicion they deserve as one of the most dangerous animals I'm likely to come into contact with, but they're fairly predictable, and the most I've had to do was slow down or wait for them to get out of the way.

[Canardly]

I would second this especially when crossing short cut muddy fields with Loadsabikes. "They are all girls" he says,  until we are half way across carrying our bikes due to the mud, and then the boy appears, previously out of sight due to the herd, red eyes, snorting, toofy pegs and all. I won my five barred gate leap over with bike award that day. My cowardice knows no bounds.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Aussies are a bit more relaxed around cattle than Brits, it seems.

[Kim]

That's because you're surrounded by homicidal wildlife, and cattle are tame in comparison....

[ian]

We've hiked through fields pretty much every weekend for decades, never ever had issue with cattle. We have had entire herds follow us, but mostly curious adolescent males. They usually follow about two metres behind and stop dead every time we turn, like they're pretending not to follow us. We've had the occasional nibble and some very friendly ones, but never an issue. Just don't spook them. Obviously don't get in the way of a bull and his bedroom antics, or between a mother and her calves, but even bulls when unaccompanied will mostly ignore you if you give them a wide berth. I think the only scary cattle thing we've seen was once when we saw an entire herd stampede. Fortunately on the other side of the field and they ran the opposite way, demolishing a hedgerow. There's been a couple of cracks of thunder earlier, so maybe they were spooked (though nothing at the very moment).

In my experience, horses can be more aggressive. But even then, if you threaten them back and stay out of kicking range, they usually retreat.

I don't think you can expect a farmer to run around changing all the signs every time he or she moves an animal. Bulls look like, well, bulls. They're not very good at sneaking up. Stiles break and paths get overgrown. Report them, eventually, someone will get around to fixing the problem, but it's a walk in the country, so expect some clambering. We always carry a pair of secateurs this time of year.

[hellymedic]

As I understand it, beef cattle are more placid than their dairy cousins.
There have been recent UK cattle trampling deaths.

[Kim]

They're not very good at sneaking up.

Unless it's dark and you've only got a 1×AAA Maglite (DAHIKT)

[Kim]

As I understand it, beef cattle are more placid than their dairy cousins.

I thought it was the other way round, on account of dairy cows getting regular human contact.

[ian]

As I understand it, beef cattle are more placid than their dairy cousins.
There have been recent UK cattle trampling deaths.

Dairy cattle mostly ignore you, beef (being male and younger) are the ones that follow. But yes, cows are big and heavy, so give yourself room to get out of their way if they do get spooked. Other than a few news-grabbing cases, it's very, very unlikely you'll get trampled. You're far more likely to get run over by a car while crossing a country lane.

We carry a couple of mega-bright LED torches (and a backup wind-up torch, and phones, of course). Things don't always go to plan. In the Canaries this year, we ended up in the middle of a pitch-black banana plantation at 10.30 pm. That was, as I was constantly assured at the time, my fault.

[ElyDave]

That's good to know, it's usually my fault

[Jasmine]

As I understand it, beef cattle are more placid than their dairy cousins.

I thought it was the other way round, on account of dairy cows getting regular human contact.

Dairy bulls don't necessarily have regular human contact. More importantly, they usually aren't socialised with other cows. Dairy calves are removed from the cow at hours to days old, so are usually bottle/bucket fed. The bull is then often kept by himself, which can lead to them being aggressive. In comparison, beef breeds tend to be bred to make them easier to manage grazing larger areas, and will be raised with the cows until weaning much later. This is particularly true of hardier native breeds, which tend not to come indoors for the winter. Beef bulls can legally be kept on a public footpath, as long as he is with some girls.

Ironically, bulls can often be much more placid than cows, particularly cows with calves at foot - more so if the cow is young with her first calf. If the cows are actually on the path, it is considered acceptable to leave the path to give them more space (as per ElyDave's suggestion).

I actually have been trampled by a cow. It hurt a great deal, but is an accepted risk of keeping livestock. Most trampling incidents happen during handling at close quarters, not roaming in the field. I've also been hit square in the face by the gate on a cattle crush swinging open with the full weight of the bull behind it (human error). That hurt too.

[Cudzoziemiec]

We've hiked through fields pretty much every weekend for decades, never ever had issue with cattle.

Even in Surrey, bestial progenation is frowned upon.

[Cudzoziemiec]

If you compare modern cattle to an aurochs and particularly an aurochs horn, you've really got to respect our Neolithic ancestors who first dared to capture and pen one.

[Davef]

Never trust a Charolais


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk