Safe Speed Forums

Of course it is unless you have a licence to do it - and sufficient bait not taken can cause pollution problems.


So, you would enourage the authorities to let off someone who caused death by driving without due care and attention just because there was no intent to kill? After all, it's the same distinction.

_________________
Will

Again your argument would hold waer Willcove, if the problem was all year around. Again, here's another extract (we can pull it apart all day long).


"So what can be done? The answer it seems is not much"

"It's a relatively short-lived process, only about three to four weeks. What we would suggest is if people can be patient until the end of the breeding season"

So the actual problem is a short lived one of about three to four weeks. but if you read between the lines, the reason why gulls are looking inland for habitat, is somewhat more complicated than littering and is more to do with territory and predators. As you suggest, if development were the cause then you would be seeing a problem confined to the busiest urban areas. This is not so as research suggest 7% nationwide, regardless.

Hell we get seagulls in Bucks, 60 miles from the sea.

The problem of protective parents is a relatively short-lived one but one that only exists because the birds nest in close proximity to people. If they nested further afield the attacks wouldn't happen.

That said, the attacks to steal food, the plastering of cars and buildings with guano, and even the ripping open of ragtops go on all year and particularly during the tourist season when there are more people out and about. The visitors feed the pests and then wonder why their little Jessica's just been mugged! The shitehawks can be pretty vicious in the competition for food and it is by no means unusual for pecks that draw blood - albeit not quite as vicious as the desparate efforts of protective parents.

So, if they weren't encouraged by the food in the first place, they'd be much less likely to nest near people, less likely to go looking for food around people, and so all of the attacks would be less likely.

_________________
Will

WDCaA is neglect (wilful or otherwise), an offender opens themselves to the consequences of their neglect. Offering of unwanted food cannot be considered to be neglect (of the environment) unless the offender has left the area before their offerings have been disposed of.

Willcove, with the law as it stands I don’t believe I’ve been given reason to accept that the pensioners fine is lawfully justified, but I do appreciate your sentiments regarding the problems of vermin.

And throwing food to the pavement is littering (wilful or otherwise). An offender opens themselves to the consequences of their actions (i.e. prosecution under the EPA.)


And I fully appreciate the disgust that people posting to this thread feel that the pensioner was unjustly dealt with. FWIW, that goes for me too - I firmly believe that a warning would have been more appropriate for the first noted offence and that fines should only be served on repeat offenders.

As to whether the penalty was legally exacted, I guess we must agree to disagree and wait until the result of any appeal!

_________________
Will

With this I agree; I’ve already stated the reasons why in my second to last post.


A warning in terms of a lecture on vermin: yes, however I still can’t accept she was an ‘offender’.



Unfortunately, the episode has already given the old dear nosebleeds so I very much doubt she would have the will to fight these ****ers in court

Hmmm, not sure I understand the logic on this one. So if I have a licence it's OK, but no licence it's littering, even though I'm still fishing?!


Ummm, no - I'd expect them to be done for driving without due care & attention...

FWIW, I hate pigeons & seagulls in our towns, and yes, it's us feeding them that encourages them, but the point of this thread is that she was done for littering, when perhaps the bylaw should be "Don't feed the birds!"

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

If you have a licence to fish (rod licence plus any permits required for the swim), then casting ground bait is a normal part of the activity for which you have that licence. If you don't have the necessary licences/permits, you're guilty of poaching if you fish and so cannot enjoy exemption from other legislation that the lawful pursuit of the sport would confer.

_________________
Will

You just made that up? "straws" and "clutching at" spring to mind...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Not really. Some fisheries ban the use of ground bait, which implies that groundbait may be used otherwise.

Of course, there is only the implication that groundbait is OK and you could be correct that the exemption doesn't exist. If that's so, there are plenty of antis who no doubt would be happy to have anglers fined fifty quid each time they cast a ball of groundbait!

Edited to add the following extract from EPA 1990 s.87:So, if groundbaiting is done with the consent of the owner of fishing rights for the swim it is not littering under the EPA. Implicit in that is the requirement for the necessary licences/permits.
-- End Edit --

Whatever the definition of litter is, "anything that is dropped, thrown, left or deposited that causes defacement, in a public place", and littering is the offence arising from the dropping, throwing, leaving, or depositing of litter. Now IANAL, but it seems to me that anglers who cast groundbait are litterers unless either there is an exemption (arising from the licence) or the swim is not a "public place".

_________________
Will

From what I've read in this case it does seem OTT, a caution a quiet word in her ear would have been more appropriate for a first time, then a fine for further 'offences'. In Chelmsford there are lots of signs saying 'Do Not Feed the Birds' it then specifically mentions pigeons and why they shouldn't be fed.

Am worried in the way we are creating a more and more rules / laws / offences and enforcing no discretion manner. Cue 1984 ???


As for pigeons they are little more than flying rats, they nest in the place they were born and only move location when there is a lack of food, so controlling pigeons can be done through no public feeding and culls.

As for the health effects as a starter you can catch these from pigoens and thier feaces:

Hepatitus A, B & C
Salmonella
Weils disease (leptospirosis)
Psitticosis

Dried feaces also affect the lungs in a similar manner to dealing with coal dust or asbestos - Pneumoconiosis (Think the spellings right).

Of the above none are very pleasant, having had psitticosis and nearly being crippled by it I can vouch first hand just how unpleasant.

Funny, when started going onto demo sites about five years ago, site workers got very ansty about rats being about but didn't have a problem with pigeons as they were seen as 'cute' despite being more of a health hazard.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

pigeons and seaguls are vermin no doubt about it....rats with wings.

However these 'wardens' are little better. they we eitrher to stupid, power crazed or under too much pressure to hit targets to exercise even the most basic forms of decency and common sense.

I have nothing but contempt for them!

So on that basis then, how does putting down crumbs that the birds will eat cause litter?

Thankyou, M'lud, I rest my case...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

You haven't got a case to rest because case law supports the view that she was littering. She's not the first person to be punished under anti-litter laws for feeding birds and I strongly suspect that she won't be the last.

_________________
Will

Oh, so the law is always right?
You know as well as I do, that the law is an ass.

If she shouldn't be feeding birds, then that should be the law under which she was prosecuted, not a different law. If there isn't such a law, then she shouldn't have been prosecuted.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Ah but Bottyburp, you've forgotten "twist & fit",

It's all the rage you know, let's just make up the definitions as we go!!

Pardon? That's been tested in the courts? Could you point us to a relevant case?

A quick search of the Internet shows several who've received fines. However, the major case law now is those who've been awarded ASBOs and injuctions under the EPA for feeding birds. For example, in 2003 Judge David Brunning issued an injunction under the EPA against Donald and Carol Booth banning them from further feeding of birds. The injunction expires some time in 2008. North of the border in 2005, Kircaldy Sherrif's Court issued an ASBO against Jean Smith forbidding her from feeding birds anywhere in Fife.

Hopefully, those will do.

_________________
Will

My bold...

But were they prosecuted for littering or for feeding birds?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Funny isn't it that when "the authorities" start creating new laws we complain that they don't need to, they should just enforce the ones that already exist.

Now we have a case where they're enforcing the ones that already exist (and I'm not passing comment on that) we complain that the law isn't good enough and we should create new ones to fit.