|
Post by Tringa on Jul 20, 2021 13:22:12 GMT
I do not know what "..... secured an option agreement to acquire 553 acres of woodland...." means so it might not be as serious as I think. However, if an area is an SSSI and also in an area of outstanding Natural Beauty and if such designations mean anything, how can there be an option to acquire at all?
Dave
At first I thought the felling might have been accidental but the account includes - "A spokesperson for the RSPB commented: "It appears that this was the only tree in the wood to be felled and then completely removed at a time when it contained an active goshawk nest. Goshawk nests are huge structures and the contents of the nest would be equally obvious."
|
|
|
Post by aeshna5 on Jul 20, 2021 14:47:59 GMT
I get the Bird Guides reports each week & it often makes for depressing reading. No wonder the natural world is in trouble. SSSIs should have much stronger protection than they seem to receive.
|
|
|
Post by ianr on Jul 21, 2021 6:14:20 GMT
That's a disgustingly low fine and as said in some of the comments it's his boss who should be prosecuted. It clearly seems the bird was targeted.
As for SSSI sites I don't think they've ever have or will get proper protection. If some company comes along and waves a big enough carrot to the local council they'll get there way ian
|
|
|
Post by Psamathe on Jul 21, 2021 10:39:30 GMT
I completely agree about the lack of protection for SSSIs but I think the whole system is completely failing. I'm mid-way through objecting to a Planning Application and on the application the applicant declared "No protected wildlife on site or nearby" - which is untrue as I have submitted verified recordings to the county Biodiversity Information Service. So you tell Planning Services the applicant is telling untruths but for the planners that is an "inconvenience" so the untruths are ignored and the Country Ecologist is not included in the consultation. So in effect Planners are saying it is quite acceptable to lie on the application form to avoid scrutiny. It completely beggars belief and to me shows how where development profit is involved "anything goes" (and it's likely to get worse if proposed changes to wildlife protection laws and planning policies go through Parliament). from www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/10/is-boris-johnson-right-to-blame-newts-for-slowing-britains-recovery-aoeIan
|
|
|
Post by rowanberry on Jul 21, 2021 18:27:47 GMT
It's all so depressing, isn't it? More and more scientists are starting to say we're not approaching the tipping point of our planet- we're here. And so what do we do? Destroy more of those precious trees that are helping to hold us back from the brink of destruction and replace them with... another Center Parc. That pathetic fine for the goshawk nest is beyond insulting.
|
|
|
Post by Tringa on Jul 22, 2021 12:44:12 GMT
I completely agree about the lack of protection for SSSIs but I think the whole system is completely failing. I'm mid-way through objecting to a Planning Application and on the application the applicant declared "No protected wildlife on site or nearby" - which is untrue as I have submitted verified recordings to the county Biodiversity Information Service. So you tell Planning Services the applicant is telling untruths but for the planners that is an "inconvenience" so the untruths are ignored and the Country Ecologist is not included in the consultation. So in effect Planners are saying it is quite acceptable to lie on the application form to avoid scrutiny. It completely beggars belief and to me shows how where development profit is involved "anything goes" (and it's likely to get worse if proposed changes to wildlife protection laws and planning policies go through Parliament). from www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/10/is-boris-johnson-right-to-blame-newts-for-slowing-britains-recovery-aoeIan
I saw that article too. I thought it was interesting that the Local Government Association said ..."it is not aware of any evidence to suggest “newt-counting” is causing delays to housing developments in England and Wales." I think Boris Johnson's comment was one of his usual type - say anything that supports his view irrespective of the accuracy.
Without the LGA's response I could imagine some people's view would be, "We can't have the economy of the country reduced by unreasonable wildlife legislation" when in fact the protection of newts in this way is not having an effect.
Dave
|
|