Protection of the Herring Gull.

Thanks for the 'link' THOMO, but there is so much diversity 'there' (at your link) that it's hard to know where to go from that webpage to 'protect' a 'nesting gull' 'in danger' without a legal prosecution of the land owner.

Kind regards, Ray Dart.

No Zo Clark. The 'juviniles' (juveniles) haven't 'left now'. They were predated upon!

This isn't an issue of 'how to prevent Herring Gulls from nesting', It's about 'how to protect the Herring Gull'. Please see my next main post here (when I post it), though I'm unsure where this shall appear in this thread.

Kind regards, Ray Dart.

Ok

To Zo Clark.

Thanks for your patience here Zo. You’re a ‘star’, but what the RSPB advises doesn’t make sense. Here’s another ‘cut-and-paste’ from ‘another app’ to reduce my time at this keyboard.

Wires!

I got ‘sick and tired’ of this pair of gulls sitting on the roof of my car on my driveway and defecating where they sat, so I fabricated a ‘network’ of string between the bars of my ‘ladder-rack’.

It made no difference!

OK, so this ‘network’ was only ~20cm above the car roof, but I’ve noticed that these gulls retract their wings just before landing and ‘plonk’ themselves onto the landing surface in an effort to avoid any nearby obstructions. How could this be an effective deterrent?

Does the RSPB suggest that I cover my ‘front garden’ with wire (doh)?

Please excuse my cynicism WRT to the RSPB, but their ability to advise me what to do with my own property both ‘beggars belief’ and is counter to ‘property rights’. What is the meaning of ‘without let or hindrance’ under these circumstances?

Where the RSPB imposes a penalty against a Herring Gull ‘nest disturbance’ when the birds present a ‘Kamakshi base for their offspring’ on a ‘private property’ and is a ‘threat to it’s own species’ by the actions of the ‘Gull’ (itself) on that property, the RSPB would need to back this up with a ‘remuneration/payment’ ‘package’ that offset any ‘costs, or disbursements’ to the ‘affected party/property owner’ to compensate for the RSPB mandate that interdicts intervention where/when the local ‘Gull population’ is ‘at risk’ by it’s selected choice of location.

Otherwise, they’ll need to make a ‘clear distinction’ between ‘wilful destruction’ and ‘protective intervention’ to prosecute their mandate!

The situation I earlier described here is one that is stressful to both ‘human’ and ‘bird’ populations. How can the RSPB support a ‘protection order’ with a possible £2,000 fine for a ‘nesting disturbance’ that, without intervention, jepordises the ‘Herring Gull’s offspring’ under these circumstances?

The RSPB should “protect” ‘all birds’ where/when they are “at risk” and not just invoke a ‘mandate’ where/when an “outside influence” ‘may be a danger’ to them! Would the term “Lemming” be helpful to understand the/my situation here for the action of the Gulls that nested in my front garden?

A ‘ground nesting Herring Gull’ shall ‘always’ be ‘at risk’ within an ‘urban environment’, so ‘who’ within the RSPB should be ‘contacted’ to ‘ameliorate/sooth’ the stress between a ‘wild Gull’ and its contact with a ‘human’ in an ‘urban environment’ that’s hostile to it (hostile to the ‘Gull’, that is).

I believe that the RSPB needs a ‘Tsar’ that can overlook and make directives upon situations such as this. There just isn’t any ‘online, one point of contact’ to advise, it’s all ‘up in the air’!

However, I’m sympathetic towards the Herring Gull (aside from the times when they startle me as they ‘jump’ on landing on the plastic roof of my conservatory, or the corrugated plastic of my car port and during their ‘caw’ when I need to turn up the volume on my TV). That aside, I can report that the couple seem to have learned a ‘REALLY HARD’ lesson from nature by the death of their chicks/offspring. They’ve/they’re taken/taking remnants of/from their ‘deserted nest’ by my front door up to my ‘flat roof/unused balcony’ where any chicks/offspring would be safer from ground based predators. Wise move!

It’s probably too late in this season for them to attempt to start another ‘family’ and there’s only a ‘partial roof nest’ to/that establish/establishes their position within a ‘nesting flock’, but it also looks as though the ‘bland’ Pollock fillets in my freezer (that I detest) may just yet be useful for next year to aid them with the nutrients that their future offspring shall need. I’ll keep you updated/informed because I know that “this scenario is on-going”.

I think you have a ‘penchant’ for this Gull species and ‘may help/may be able to help’ to posit a more ‘realistic’ point of view to/for ‘Gull protections’ within the RSPB, if not, somebody reading this thread may be able to do so.:)

In General (to all here)!

Our ‘throw away society’ is an ‘attractor’ for/to Gull populations! This leads to an incongruous relationship between Human and Gull societies which builds to Gull flocks existing within a, what should be solely a ‘Human society’, mixed relationship for habitat between Gulls and People.

This ‘link/situation’ is ‘already established’, thus, it’s time for ‘peacemaking’ and not ‘exclusion’.

Gulls are quite an intelligent species and are able to ‘learn’ ‘codes of conduct’ for their ‘survival’ and, eventually, the ‘survival of their species’ on a more ‘macro level’. When I see ‘Whistler’ sitting on the roof of my car I used to raise a ‘sweeping broom’ above my head as I advanced towards him to force him off of my car. Now I only need to point towards my front gate as I advance to make him move cautiously/reluctantly to the car ‘bonnet’ and, eventually, to my driveway. Thus, we seem to have an ‘understanding/relationship’ between us! For my part, I also gave the couple half a ‘Pollock fillet’ each (on my flat roof/ balcony) as they moved their nest from ‘the ground’ to my ‘flat roof/balcony’ (an inducement towards nest security). Their ‘move’ continues, but results from this should, IMHO, be recognised next year when data can be collated and analysed! Their ‘rooftop nest’ is incomplete and ‘remnants’ of the ‘old nest’ continue to litter my front garden (it’s also [I believe] too late in the season for the couple to mate again).

I’d rather we didn’t need to live with Gulls (apply methods to prevent ‘nesting’). They ‘swoop’ with ‘protectionist aggression’ whilst their ‘young’ are vulnerable and are particularly ‘aggressive’ towards our ‘human population’ during their ‘nesting season’.

Last year a neighbour was attacked by a Herring Gull on the corner at the top of our road (we ‘nick named’ the Gull ‘Sid Vicious’ because the Gull drew blood from the neighbour’s head), but thankfully, there was not a ‘secondary infection’ to my neighbour following this ‘attack’.

Can we improve upon our ‘relationship’ with Gulls? IMHO these/any Gulls that occupy the same ‘space’ as ‘us’ just doesn’t seem to respond to any ‘exclusion strategy' by ‘us’. They’re ‘here’ and I don’t see how we humans can ‘chase them away’. However, education, education, education!

I destroyed my couple’s ‘incomplete nest’ of ‘Whistler and his mate’ twice before they were able to complete their ‘home’, but awakening the following day to a ‘partial nest’ containing an ‘egg’ in the now ‘established’ ‘ground nest’, I just ‘gave up’! So I ‘left them to their own devices’. Thus, we need to learn ‘how to live with them’ in an ‘urban environment’, and more importantly, how to ‘educate’ the Herring Gull to ‘survive’ within an ‘urban environment’. Prohibition of ‘nest destruction’ and to ‘exclude the species’ doesn’t ‘cut the mustard’ any more!

IMHO, it’s the ‘protection order itself’ that’s ‘killing them’ within an ‘urban environment’ where/when no alternative  can be understood/realised/implemented. I re-iterate that in my locality the population density relates more towards a ‘flock’ than ‘dispersed nesting’, most ‘roofs’ are already occupied and I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the birds were ‘related’ to one-another. Moreover, these guys ‘mate for life’, live for about 20 years and ‘nest’ at the same ‘location’ every year.

How can/could we ‘exclude them’ (Herring Gulls)? I don’t understand how we could (we ‘attracted’ them into our ‘universe’ in the first place, with fishing boats) and/when ‘bird flue’ has already ‘taken it’s toll’ on many ‘gull species’ within ‘our realm’, all ‘Gull species’ need help!

How can we live with them? That’s the most part of what this thread’s about! “Shite Hawks” (as they’re called by our Naval Forces) are in decline! Do we want them to survive within our ‘universe’ when the RSPB makes legislation which makes it so difficult to ‘aid’ a ‘mating pair’ of gulls in a hostile ‘urban environment’?

I guess I’ve said about all that I can on this subject to date, but there may well be ‘other posts’ that include new datum/observation as and when it presents itself. Any relevant response here is welcome.

Kindest regards, Ray Dart (AKA, suricat).

As an 'afterthought', I should offer pictures of the current 'nesting' situations for 'Whistler and mate' and try to show 'what/how the/my' 'local Herring Gull ' population density may be represented pictorially. However, it's dark now and impossible for me to take photos, I'll do this and post when I'm able to do so.

Kind regards, Ray Dart.

Ok

I apologise for my untimely delay, but the ‘roof nest’ was improperly made and ‘blew away’ with local winds and the ‘panorama’ I suggested would, perhaps, give my location. Thus, this apologetic post on the travails of the ‘Herring Gull’.

I also have a problem with ‘cut and paste photos’ from ‘another app’ here, so these photos are omitted.

OK Zo Clark, here goes.

The Herring Gull is quite an intelligent, nimble and adaptive species, but their intelligence seems to outweigh their ability to survive a ‘real time’ confrontation with our ‘human species’. If you think otherwise, please let me know how and why you would think this to be so.

As you said, ‘the Herring Gull’ employs a ‘pecking order’ within a ‘flock’, and also (as I believe) a ‘pecking order’ within a ‘nesting site/region’. This species recognises a system of superiority within its familial hierarchy. Thus, can ‘approve/teach’ a ‘modus operandi’ (way to work, or way to achieve and survive) for the sustenance of ‘the family’ to future generations/offspring, but seems to have no ‘modus vivendi’ for coexistence with ‘other species’.

However, the ‘collision’ with a ’human entity’ for the Herring Gull is dependant upon both the ‘human entity’s’ and the ‘Herring gull’s’ awareness of ‘the other entity’s’ awareness and way of life for ‘the other species/each of the species’ in turn. In other words, the understanding must be ‘mutual’ between the two groups to find a future way forward for ‘both’ their survival/s.

The ‘town pidgin’ has achieved this, so why can’t the Herring Gull? Time for the ‘species’ to learn how to adapt? Does this mean that the ‘town pidgin’ is more adaptable to a co-existent life within a ‘human environment’ than the ‘Herring Gull’, or is there a deeper meaning here? Does survival between species (modus vivendi) play a significant role? I believe it does/is (and all the rest). : )

Kindest regards, Ray Dart,

Zo Clark said:

That has already been said a couple of times and I have already sent a link about gulls and the law on the previous one that’s why I didn’t send that link.

I have posted the UK Government website about gulls including red listed and how as a L last  resort and no other way on how a licence can be applied including red listed gulls..

Thanks for your link Ian, but if wanted to ‘get rid’ of these Gulls I would have contacted Rural England for ‘permissions’, then bought a 12 bore shotgun (BTW, I note that ‘seagull’ is mentioned in part of your link). ; )

But seriously, this Herring Gull couple have attempted to nest successfully for at least two seasons without any productive result. Do I expect that this incompatibility to produce progeny shall end in ‘divorce’? No, they were successful this season, but the ‘nest site’ proved ‘indefensible’ for their chicks and the two Herring Gulls continue to sit side-by-side on my neighbour’s front wall. Both continue to ‘peck’ at the cell structure of my porch roof (self note to superglue repairs to this) and they both ‘tap-dance’ on both the porch roof and car-port roof (not to mention ‘screaming’ [in hot weather when my doors and windows are open] as ‘the punchline’ is delivered on my favourite TV programme)! : (

However, my ‘minor discomforts’ don’t stack-up against the ‘habitual inability’ for this Gull couple to enjoy ‘a family’ that is their ‘actual offspring’. This is a reason why I posted here in the first instance. The ‘couple’ are, quite obviously, ‘offspring’ from their ‘parents’ which educated them about ‘family’ when ‘many nest sites are/were available’, but when ‘many nest sites are unavailable’ this ‘education’ is pointless.

Either we leave it up to the Herring Gull’s ‘intelligence’ to ‘nest elsewhere’, or we try to ‘influence’ them towards a more favourable environment to ‘nest’. How can this be achieved? Do you have any input? Do you have any other ‘data’ that could help our ‘understanding’ of the Herring Gull’s ‘habits’?

Kindest regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).