How can we justify the protection of this species where/when they nest 'too close' to an urban population for their own security?
'OK'! I blame the fisheries (fishermen) for leading herring gulls to our ports and land regions, but the fact that we protect this species means that we also 'protect' the 'species' without condition.
I'm currently faced with a ground 'nest' at my front door. That's OK in that I don't need to use this means of transit as I have a 'side door' that I can use. However, that ingress/exit takes me within 4ft of the ground nest which also invokes an 'aggressive attitude' from the 'parenting/nesting couple' for this ground-space. I avoid this 'agression' by feeding the couple with an acceptable form of food (white fish) at an optimal time during their occupation. I should 'not' need to do this to safely enter/exit my home! These raptors can inflict injury that may induce a bacterial/viral infection where/when a 'broken skin' scenario evolves from a confrontational encounter, so how are they not 'vermin' in this scenario?
That said, this nesting couple isn't likely to be sucsesful in their endeavour to procreate due to the local population of urban fox.
How can anyone manage this scenario without the implication of the £2,000 fine for nesting disruption, or the added cost/inconvenience of cohabitation with this species. Many of us can't afford to 'live' with this 'inconvenience'.
Kind regards, Ray.
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).
Regards,
Ian.
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..