Manchester Airport calls off its cull of rooks nesting in Dunham Massey Golf Club

MANCHESTER Airport has called off a bird cull in Dunham that was due to take place this week, after an outcry from nature lovers.

Airport bosses put up notices at the weekend saying they would carry out a cull of a flock of rooks on Thursday.

They claimed the work was necessary because a rookery on Dunham Massey Golf Club course, which is National Trust land, is on a flightpath to the airport.

Campaigners, who claimed the cull was not necessary, set up an on-line petition that was signed by nearly 200 people.

And on Monday the airport announced a u-turn and said it would consult with the community before taking any action.

A Manchester Airport spokesperson said: “During a recent assessment it became clear that birds nesting in the woodland area at Dunham Massey Golf Club were commuting between the rookery and our airfield. In order to reduce the risk of an aircraft bird strike and maintain public safety we held discussions with the National Trust to decide on a solution.

“Plans were in place to adjust the habitat of the rooks on April 30, in accordance with the general licence issued by Natural England but instead we will be continuing talks with the local community as to how best to proceed with reducing the risks.

“The airport already operates a bird hazard management plan which involves specific measures to reduce the presence of birds on the airfield, including the use of dispersal techniques and habitat management measures. In addition to the measures taken on the airport site, we make regular assessments of the bird population at a large number of sites within 13km of the airfield in accordance with regulatory requirements.”

Campaigner Teresa Graham, the secretary of the Friends of Denzell Gardens and Devisdale in neighbouring Bowdon, said she was delighted at the news – but wanted details of how the airport was going to consult with the community.

The website opposing the bird cull claimed the loss of the rook flock would be “devastating and the damage is irreversible”.

http://www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/news/4325340.Protestors_halt_airport_s_rook_cull_in_Dunham

One for sorrow, two for joy … why we must protect magpies

* Chris Packham
* The Guardian

If you see a single magpie this week, consider yourself the lucky one. Because the Songbird Survival Trust has called all bird lovers to arms. They want a magpie cull and they are not just asking farmers or gamekeepers to lock and load; they want everyone with a garden to use their legal right to kill these birds now, in their breeding season, leaving their chicks to starve in the nest. Well, as a lifelong and passionate birder, I’m not going to be signing up for the slaughter.

The trust’s reasoning comes down to the same old misinformed chestnut – that evil magpies are causing the decline in smaller songbirds. It’s kneejerk ornithological racism, ignorant and counterproductive. It’s true that some magpies prey on the nests of smaller birds during the breeding season, but this is for perhaps three or four months of the year and only affects young birds that are easily replaced. The magpies never kill the more valuable breeding adults (unlike cats, which do so 365 days a year). No predator would thrive by dramatically reducing its own food supply; indeed, in areas where there are more magpies, there are typically more smaller species too. So how could the trust get it so wrong? I can only assume that this fringe group is still clinging to outdated views built on a foundation of medieval superstition.

Magpies have long been Britain’s most hated bird. They are big, brightly marked and bark like Bren guns. Despite their brash appearance, they are a native species, but an in-your-face one, with a wealth of folklore to subconsciously seed such hateful reactions. Many people still tip their hats to a lonesome specimen and say, “Hello Mr Magpie, how is your wife today?”, in a bid to appease the harbinger of misfortune.

The truth is that no scapegoats are required to explain the horrific reduction of songbird numbers. It all our fault. We have levelled and poisoned the landscape in our drive for cheap food and when the refugees fled to the cities we decked and concreted over our gardens to park our cars and save cutting the lawn. So rather than killing anything I’m going to continue to support creative conservation and fill up my bird feeders, and when I see a magpie I’ll smile.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/apr/20/magpies-protect-cull-songbird-survival

Date set for Clarissa Dickson-Wright hunt trial

A date has finally been set for the Scarborough trial of television chef Clarissa Dickson-Wright on hunting charges.

Ms Dickson-Wright, of Midlothian in Scotland – who found fame as one half of the Two Fat Ladies – is accused of hunting hares with dogs and attending hare coursing events in March 2007.

The offences are alleged to have taken place in Nunnington, near Helmsley and Amotherby, Malton. Ms Dickson-Wright is due to stand trial on August 1.

Racehorse trainer Sir Mark Prescott, of Newmarket, is accused of similar offences and will also attend trial on that day. Both are being prosecuted by the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Five other people, who are being prosecuted for a number of alleged hunting related offences by the Crown Prosecution Service, will stand trial on July 27. They are Miles Henry Easterby, 79, of Great Habton, Malton; Andrew Lund-Watkinson, 58, of Newton-on-Rawcliffe, Picker-ing; John Shaw, 55, of Welburn, Kirkbymoorside; Jacqueline Ann Teal, 43, of Scarborough Road, Norton; and Elizabeth Margaret Gibson, 45, of Appleton-le-Street, Malton.

http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk/news/Date-set-for-Clarissa-DicksonWright.5182922.jp

Charities in dispute over culling magpies

From The Times
Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor

Wildlife charities are in dispute over the role of magpies in the disappearance of songbirds from gardens across the country.

The birds are considered vicious nest marauders by many supporters of Songbird Survival and the Countryside Alliance, who claim magpies snatch chicks and eggs.

But the RSPB and the RSPCA are rushing to defend the species (Pica pica) to prevent thousands being killed. They claim the decline of songbirds has more to do with intensive farming practices than with the long-tailed members of the corvid family. They also claim that, despite a huge increase in the magpie population from 1970 to the mid-1990s, it has remained stable in the past decade.

The campaign to save magpies coincides with the bird breeding season, when many people believe it is their right to trap and kill these scavengers. Anyone harming magpies is also warned that they face a fine of up to £5,000 or six months in prison.

David Hoccom, a spokesman for the RSPB, said: “We do not think that trapping and killing of magpies is justified in most situations. In certain circumstances on reserves to protect ground-nesting birds such as lapwings it may be necessary to reduce magpie numbers. But we do not think there is any case for people to do it in their own gardens and it will make absolutely no difference to arrest the decline of songbirds throughout the country.”

A spokesman for the RSPCA said it was also prepared to bring prosecutions against anyone being cruel to magpies. “Magpies are not responsible for the decline of songbirds. We urge everyone to leave them alone not least because there is a risk if the public attempt to catch and kill magpies they will cause suffering to the birds.”

However, many supporters of Songbird Survival, a charity set up to save the dawn chorus, believe that it is their lawful duty to keep magpie numbers down to save species such as song thrushes, starlings and house sparrows. The law allows them to do so for purposes of bird conservation.

Penelope Elliott, 56, a retired nurse from Devon, has been culling magpies for the past five years — usually about twenty-five a year. She said: “It’s definitely had a positive impact and we now have more wrens, finches and blackbirds.”

Songbird Survival insists it has not organised a campaign to kill magpies. However, Nick Forde, a trustee of the charity, said: “There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence that a magpie can go down a whole hedgerow taking out every songbird nest. The Government is not going to do anything about it so there is a case for people following the evidence of their eyes and doing something about it. I don’t like harming animals, but if they are destroying our biodiversity then we have to take action. But trapping and killing must be done humanely and properly.”

The Countryside Alliance also supports the control of magpies to protect pheasant and partridge chicks. Tim Bonner, a spokesman for the group, said: “We would encourage people to help manage the magpie population. Gamekeepers have long known that magpies have a detrimental effect on wild bird breeding success but it is important that people understand the legal framework and adhere to the terms of open licences.”

He also questioned the opposition of wildlife groups: “The RSPB carries out corvid control on its own reserves and should be encouraging, not discouraging, the trapping of magpies for the sake of songbirds.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6115155.ece

Charges dropped

The League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) has dropped its private prosecution of four members of the Isle of Wight Hunt, which was the last hunt prosecution adjourned pending a recent High Court judgment.

LACS has confirmed it will not be continuing with the prosecution against Stuart Trousdale, Liam Thom, Jamie Butcher and Malcolm Purcell from the Isle of Wight. Prosecutions against the Heythrop Hunt and Devon and Somerset Staghounds by the Crown Prosecution Service have already been discontinued.

One huntsman in Northumberland has since been charged with a single Hunting Act offence and is the only person connected to a hunt currently facing charges.