Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
Alan de Enfield

Ducks 'get in the way of cyclists' 4500 eggs destroyed.

Featured Posts

 

 

Thousands of duck eggs destroyed because birds ‘posed threat to cyclists’

 

Calls for Natural England to be axed over latest decision to anger wildlife lovers.

Officials are allowing thousands of wild duck eggs to be destroyed, killing the unhatched ducklings, in part because it is claimed the birds pose a threat to cyclists.

Natural England, the government’s adviser on nature, has given the go-ahead to the destruction of 4,500 mallard eggs in three years, after one applicant cited “a safety concern” as there was “a high number of people cycling and the ducks often walk out in front of them”.

The decision – the latest in a string of incidents that have angered nature-lovers – prompted calls for Natural England to be scrapped.

Documents seen by The Independent suggest the egg-wrecking happens at a site in Bedfordshire where the public can visit lakes, restaurants and food outlets, and another site in Suffolk, although the details have been redacted.

The Bedfordshire licence applicant said the mallard population had risen dramatically and they congregated around seating areas.

Other reasons cited were “faeces around seating areas” and the risk of collisions between birds and cyclists.

Natural England issued the first Bedfordshire licence, to destroy 500 eggs, in 2016, and a licence was given last year to destroy 1,000 eggs, but details have only just been made public after Jason Endfield, an environmental blogger, uncovered them using Freedom of Information laws.

Officials also rubber-stamped applications to destroy 500 more eggs this year and another 500 next year, the documents show.

In 2017-18, Natural England gave the green light to wreck 2,000 mallard eggs and 300 geese eggs in Suffolk, according to the papers.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/duck-eggs-mallard-cyclist-natural-england-destroy-bedfordshire-a9198886.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make bells or a warning instrument compulsory on bikes to warn the ducks (and people) of their approach,and make the people who make these decisions  in Natural England go out with poop bags and clean up after the ducks.

It's culling by another name,and as ducks pose no threat to humans,livestock or wildlife I'm against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mad Harold said:

Make bells or a warning instrument compulsory on bikes to warn the ducks (and people) of their approach,and make the people who make these decisions  in Natural England go out with poop bags and clean up after the ducks.

It's culling by another name,and as ducks pose no threat to humans,livestock or wildlife I'm against it.

On the other hand.

 

Possibly they have decided that the population is so massively out of proportion due to all the additional food from the locals that it is appropriate to try to limit the numbers.

The papers used the more sensational complaints in the reporting because the report has come from the locals who are upset by the decision.

 

Just a guess

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frangar said:

...and don’t get me started about the way they think they have a right to cycle on the pavement.

What is it about that which causes you angst, pray tell?

 

 

 

 

;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was surely published on April 1st? If not, it's disgusting beyond belief.

Most people like ducks. We are amused by their on-land waddlings, we're charmed by their appearance on the water, we admire their graceful flight. If we're having a bad day, the sight of ducks cheers us up.  Yet this body, which I presume is something to do with nature conservation, proposes to kill them?

 

Is it not illegal to damage wild birds' eggs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if folk stopped feeding the little darlings with tonnes of unhealthy white bread then maybe they would do less poo and wouldn't harass the public for more of the same junk food.

 

it's people that need educating and controlling, not the ducks.

  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

What is it about that which causes you angst, pray tell?

 

 

 

 

;)

 

It just ain't natural. 

Screenshot_20191113-080134.png

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Athy said:

This was surely published on April 1st? If not, it's disgusting beyond belief.

Most people like ducks. We are amused by their on-land waddlings, we're charmed by their appearance on the water, we admire their graceful flight. If we're having a bad day, the sight of ducks cheers us up.  Yet this body, which I presume is something to do with nature conservation, proposes to kill them?

 

Is it not illegal to damage wild birds' eggs?

Or maybe consider it's a sensational story designed to garner outrage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

Or maybe consider it's a sensational story designed to garner outrage

That worked, then!

 

Now, for swans I would make allowances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

What is it about that which causes you angst, pray tell?

 

 

 

 

;)

 

Having worked in London recently despite millions being spent on cycle routes they still seem to think the pavements are theirs too...and get quite upset when pedestrians don’t jump out the way...I had some full & frank exchanges of opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, frangar said:

Having worked in London recently despite millions being spent on cycle routes they still seem to think the pavements are theirs too...and get quite upset when pedestrians don’t jump out the way...I had some full & frank exchanges of opinion...

Serious question:  do you think the ones you are talking about behave like self-entitled tw*ts only when they are on a bicycle?

Edited by Wittenham
minor grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wittenham said:

Serious question:  do you think the ones you are talking about behave like self-entitled tw*ts only when they are on a bicycle?

I think they feel a sense of entitlement because they ride a bike....this may of course spread over into other parts of their lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, frangar said:

I think they feel a sense of entitlement because they ride a bike....this may of course spread over into other parts of their lives. 

oh... but I ride a bike.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, frangar said:

I think they feel a sense of entitlement because they ride a bike.. 

They are entitled to ride a bike, but surely not on the pavement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wittenham said:

oh... but I ride a bike.  

Don’t try riding on the pavement or through a red light if I’m nearby! 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have avoided internet discussions about cyclist behaviour since usenet forums in the 90s, I think there is more chance of getting agreement on Leavers/Remainers.  But  this seems an open minded and chatty group.... I raced bicycles for decades - mountain bikes, cyclo cross, triathlon, time trials, too scared to do road racing, sportives [yes, i know, that is not 'racing'].  I cycle commuted through London for ~15 years, use a bicycle as my main source of transport around Oxford.  I ride a motorcycle 8 to 10K miles per year to commute to work and I own a car.

 

My view:  inconsiderate a*seholes are inconsiderate a*seholes, irrespective of which form of transport they are using.  Calling out cyclists is the same as saying 'all those blue eyed people drive badly', or 'i notice it is always someone with a green shirt'.  I could write all my n=1 anecdotes about getting harassed on a bicycle by cars/vans/lorries, or examples of stupid behaviour by cyclists, and every combination inbetween.  Just last week, a Mercedes roared toward me [from behind] on the Cowley road, blaring its horn as I was in midst of the crime of stopping in the road on my bicycle to turn right [and was indicating] whilst the oncoming traffic cleared.  Does that mean every Mercedes driver is an inconsiderate a*sehole [some room for debate on Audi drivers, I grant you... :-)].  Or was it more likely the person behind the wheel  rather  than their form of transport?

Edited by Wittenham
typo
  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sea Dog said:

What is it about that which causes you angst, pray tell?

 

 

 

 

;)

 

It's highly dangerous and illegal. But why would you let those facts get in the way of you making a controversial statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, frangar said:

Don’t try riding on the pavement or through a red light if I’m nearby! 

do you have a list of traffic offences that you are ok with and those that you are not?  What do you do about cars speeding?  Vans double parked and blocking busy roads?  Other vehicles not giving way appropriately?  Talking on the mobile whilst driving?  etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My son, whilst a youngster, passed his cycling proficiency test, was cycling along an estate road, Postman Pat looking at his next delivery,on a bike, flew out of a driveway forcing said son into the road, narrowly missed by a following car. Son gets mouthful of abused from driver of car to add to his scare. From then on he always rode on the pavements. Far safer.

I used to be a keen cyclist when young. Bought a bike a few years ago, rode a few times and realised it's a dangerous pastime. Gave up the bike.

Was just being fitted for tight Lycra at the time. 

Edited by Nightwatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some thought on the duck story so far.

 

1.  It is illegal to kill, injure, harm a nest of eggs etc unless you have a licence from English nature.   This allows people to apply to control pest species.

 

2.  I am sure the public feeding causes the over population particularly at public water ways/ponds.  I have yet to find definitive evidence that white bread is harmful to birds.  Even scientists who claim it haven't given me a believable answer.  I would suggest that if it was so unhealthy the population wouldn't do so well.  There has been some suggestion it might be the cause of "angel wing" , if this is correct I would expect far more cases to be seen particularly at feeding hot spots.

 

3.  In the unnatural habitat which is the UK many species need control/culling.  Peter Scott well known wildfowler turned conservationist accepted this and even used it campaigning for bird protection laws.

 

4.  Pricking eggs which prevents the development of the egg is a normal procedure for controlling populations particularly wildfowl.  It is considerably more humane than killing the adults by whatever method.

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wittenham said:

do you have a list of traffic offences that you are ok with and those that you are not? 

I should think that most people do. They're not O.K. with any traffic offences, because they are offences, whether committed by motor  cars, bicycles or (less likely around here) tuk-tuks., and are thus by definition offensive. This seems to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Some thought on the duck story so far.

 

1.  It is illegal to kill, injure, harm a nest of eggs etc unless you have a licence from English nature.   This allows people to apply to control pest species.

 

2.  I am sure the public feeding causes the over population particularly at public water ways/ponds.  I have yet to find definitive evidence that white bread is harmful to birds.  Even scientists who claim it haven't given me a believable answer.  I would suggest that if it was so unhealthy the population wouldn't do so well.  There has been some suggestion it might be the cause of "angel wing" , if this is correct I would expect far more cases to be seen particularly at feeding hot spots.

 

3.  In the unnatural habitat which is the UK many species need control/culling.  Peter Scott well known wildfowler turned conservationist accepted this and even used it campaigning for bird protection laws.

 

4.  Pricking eggs which prevents the development of the egg is a normal procedure for controlling populations particularly wildfowl.  It is considerably more humane than killing the adults by whatever method.

This 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

 

 

 

2.  I am sure the public feeding causes the over population

But this implies that ducks, when in the wild, are unable to feed themselves, which I do not believe is the case. I, in common with millions of other people, enjoy feeding ducks, but I have never thought that it was necessary, except perhaps in periods of snowy and icy weather when they cannot gain access to their natural diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.