Hi there
A retired schoolteacher charged with possessing wild birds has accused the RSPCA of “intimidating” bird breeders across the country. http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk_...ation_1_809170 A retired schoolteacher charged with possessing wild birds has accused the RSPCA of “intimidating” bird breeders across the country. Edward William Easter, 71, appeared at King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court yesterday for the start of his trial on six wild bird charges....... Now this to me just takes the biscuit, or is it the taking mick of the rights of all wild birds the right to have a free life, and it is illegal - end of story! I'm in shock!!!! Regards Kathy and Dave
Blackbird / Sooty. The following makes no comment on any current case.
I will try and explain the legislation in very basic terms and it isn't easy. Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act provides protection for wild birds, other animals, plants etc. The basic presumption is that all wild birds ansd eggs are fully protected from the golden eagle to the peregrine to the robin to the carrion crow to everything. Some (known as Sched 1 birds ) have greater protection than others and are protected against disturbance etc.
If you have any wild bird in your possession, without good reason, you would commit an offence
It is possible to have birds and other animals in your possession without any problem if those birds (and their parents) are born in captivity. So although these might be the same species as a wild bird you would not commit an offence and in most common cases would not need a 'licence'.
However there are lists of birds and other animals etc for which you need to have a 'licence' to do certain things even if captive bred. The main one for the subject we are discussing here is Schedule 4 of this Act which gives a list of birds which must be ringed and registred if kept in captivity. That list can be changed without new legislation. Bearing in kind the number of species on the british list there are only about 50 or so on Sched 4 . and some of those have been removed incuding some Birds of Prey.
Alongside that there are species protected under international CITES legislation that have to be registered in a similar way. For British species they tend to be the same birds.
There are other licences (general and specific) that allow to you do certain things to birds etc. This covers ringing, phptpgraphy, shooting of crows etc etc which lay down specific guidelines you must adhere to.
One site to look at is the JNCC site or naturenet.
That is as simple as I can make it. My back ground is that I spent 16 years as a Police Wildlife Officer and still work within that field.
The Cotswold Water park sightings website
My Flicker page
Bob thank you very much know you are very knowledgable on regulations in this case a bit of difficlty to follow,the conclusion I came to was that if no license needed it seemed likely that you needed to have it ringed,chipped or some evidence it was captive bred but for sure if I was keeping captive bred birds I would definitely cover myself against prosecution even if it meant informing the police of what I intended.
Obviously someone is innocent until proven guilty but as wild bird lovers expected the members to think this was a disgrace if only morally wrong.Wild birds should definitely not be in captivity.
Sooty, Ringing not necessarily needed. The onus is on the prosecution to prove 'wild' and it can be done through expert knowledge of bird behaviour and increasingly the use of DNA.
Hi Bob
Thank you for your explanation of the schedules - they are quite difficult to explain and that is understandable.
I like the idea of using DNA - even a micro-chip would prove a lot too for the bird in question if it is kept in captivity, and if it has been taken from the wild or not.
It needs something to protect the birds fist and foremost each and every time.
I read elsewhere that a man has been prosecuted for keeping Shrikes in his possession. So it is not impossible for this man to escape the next part of his court case with any reprecussions yet
It will be interesting to see what happens next
Regards
Kathy and Dave
Thanks Bob good to have clarification,cannot imagine what pleasure anyone gets out of those birds,I know in 1920s and 30s some people kept Goldfinches for singing and have been told but do not know if it is true they bred them with Canaries,perhaps someone knows if it is possible to cross breed them.
Hi
It is not illegal to keep British Birds that have been bred in captivity, these are fitted with closed rings supplied by DEFRA, these can only be fitted when a bird is still in the nest.
When I first read this article I did wonder though what was to stop an illegal keeper to fit rings to a wild chick once born and then monitor the nest and take the birds just before they fledge?
Anyway I found these to sites below when trying to find out more details on the internet.
http://www.britishbirdcouncil.com/
http://www.british-birds-in-aviculture.info/BRITISH-THE-LAW.html
Shane
Regards Shane
My Photos in Flickr.
Emneth bird breeder “cannot prove” his birds are captive, court hears
Hi Shane
So the bird needs to be ringed to show that it legal - but legalities can be abused.
This whole issue has been a bit of any eye opener for everyone on here
The part of the link from the' britishbirdcouncil' link states a lot of the rights of people who breed birds, and the law
http://www.britishbirdcouncil.com/legal_advice.htm
This whole issue has opened a whole can of worms here
Blackbird / Shane. Just to clarify the ringing is needed to sell or display. If you want to keep common birds and breed yourself not for sale, no legal need. The BBC will supply rings and unlike ringers rings they are not split (look like a wedding ring) so can only go on before the foot hardens and can't then come off.
My concern out of discussions like this is that people will view bird keeping as somehow naturally illegal. I am not in favour of birds in captivity but there are a lot of people who keep birds and totally comply with the law.
Unknown said: My concern out of discussions like this is that people will view bird keeping as somehow naturally illegal. I am not in favour of birds in captivity but there are a lot of people who keep birds and totally comply with the law.
I agree, while it may be against the morals of some it isn't against the law. If morals were left to play a part in pet keeping, there would be no pets at all as someone somewhere finds the keeping of anything as a pet immoral and would like to see no animals kept in captivity for any purpose at all.
Millie & Fly the Border Collies