244 swan deaths in 6yrs

[kent marshman]

im not very good at getting my views over in words and it seems that im unhappy with just the rspb but infact its frustration with all the bodies concerned if they all spoke to each other maybe these problems could be sorted out sooner. its great to be able to interact with people who do care about wildlife,
thanks george

[kent marshman]

acording to the warden on the nnr there has only been 7 swans hit the line in the last 2yrs but friends of mine who live up the road and drive past most days say theres been more than that, NE clear up the carcasses now so you cant count them 2yrs ago 38 hit the line in one year edf placed more diverters on the line but the problem is the land behind the line rises up so in the late evening when wildfowl flight in they cant see the line no matter how many diverters they place on it NE dont even contact EDF when theres a swan strike

[kent marshman]

one of my pics i took when nearly 200 swans hit a power line near monkton east kent

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by kent marshman

one of my pics i took when nearly 200 swans hit a power line near monkton east kent

wow that is a very shocking pic - was this after a foggy night? if it was then preventing it would be difficult without getting the lines underground.

Are they all mutes? If they're woopers or bewicks it may well be part of NE conservation objective for the site to conserve them.

Is there a local ca,paign to get the wires undergorund? it may well be worth adding adding flames to the fire with these pics and statistics.....

[kent marshman]

these arnt pics from the nnr but a couple of miles away, the first swans hit the line in the fog and because there were so many lying on the field they acted like decoys causing more swans to fly into the line ive got pics of swans that have been dead for quite sometime with freshly dead swans lying on top of them,

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by annmaria

Well Kent Marshman seems this has got the almostnormal a bit hot under the collar! My family are RSPB members and although I appreciate what 'almost' is saying I do think the RSPB damages its image and probably puts lots of people joining the RSPB by being so negative about injured birds which are not on the endangered list . Often on the shore( Lytham St Annes ) their are injured birds, there is a RSPB shop right on the front which actually has a sign saying DO NOT BRING INJURED BIRDS HERE.......... crazy !
Annmaria

and what precisely would be the purpose of bringing an injured bird to the RSPB shop ???? the RSPB is not the rspca and has no wildlife hospitals or indeed any facility for treating injured birds.

It is clear that any injured bird - protected or not - needs to go to a wildlife hospital or vet for treatment , not to a retail outlet of a charity which has no facilities to treat it - in this context whats is so crazy about the sign ? - to my mind it makes perfect sense !

The underlying point here as with some previous posts is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the RSPB does.

[almostnormal]

Originally Posted by annmaria

Well Kent Marshman seems this has got the almostnormal a bit hot under the collar! My family are RSPB members and although I appreciate what 'almost' is saying I do think the RSPB damages its image and probably puts lots of people joining the RSPB by being so negative about injured birds which are not on the endangered list . Often on the shore( Lytham St Annes ) their are injured birds, there is a RSPB shop right on the front which actually has a sign saying DO NOT BRING INJURED BIRDS HERE.......... crazy !
Annmaria

another first rate bit of misinformation. what exactly do you imagine the shop at the discovery centre is going to do with the injured birds? much as i'm sure the RSPB would love to help them it doesn't have the resources to set up wildlife hospitals all over the uk, and they're about protection, preservation and education, not treatment. the RSPCA will take in injured wildlife if they receive it, as will local vets. I'm pretty sure that the sign on the discovery centre points you in the direction of both, and if you go in they also give you the details. the RSPB is about conservation of biodiversity (which i've already stated) and has been for the last 100 years or so. it has never been about taking in and treating injured birds. perhaps you should consider reading up on a subject before spouting misleading information.

[almostnormal]

Originally Posted by kent marshman

NE made the problem worse by extending the reserve but didnt take into consideration the power line when planning the extention, EDF have been the only bodie who have done their best to sort this problem out other than fobbing me off by telling me they were going to place the line under ground and not doing anything till i contacted them 2yrs later, NE chairs the meetings concerning power lines on their land like at cobham and st margrets at cliff, surely swan deaths are more important than views over land of outstanding natural beauty i contacted the rspb for advice they told me to contact the bodies concerned which i had already done if that didnt work go to the press i wasnt asking them to spend loads of money just make a few phone calls which may have helped after all they are the royal society protection birds, im very sorry if ive offended you i just thought people should be aware and maybe in the future it wont take so long to sort these problems out

i'm not offended, but i think if the rspb responded by taking up the matter they would have to see it through to the end as it were, and unfortunately that would take loads of resources that aren't available. it is pretty shoddy that no-one was doing much about it, but it takes alot more than the rspb to get anything done! most of the relevant bodies fob them off just as often as they fob the rest of us off. good example of this is the severn barrage, which the rspb is still cmpaigning about some 20years later...never ending...

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by almostnormal

another first rate bit of misinformation. what exactly do you imagine the shop at the discovery centre is going to do with the injured birds? much as i'm sure the RSPB would love to help them it doesn't have the resources to set up wildlife hospitals all over the uk, and they're about protection, preservation and education, not treatment. the RSPCA will take in injured wildlife if they receive it, as will local vets. I'm pretty sure that the sign on the discovery centre points you in the direction of both, and if you go in they also give you the details. the RSPB is about conservation of biodiversity (which i've already stated) and has been for the last 100 years or so. it has never been about taking in and treating injured birds. perhaps you should consider reading up on a subject before spouting misleading information.

But the thing is this is what an awful lot of people think..... an awful lot think that the RSPCA is for birds and the RSPCA is for everything else - this is a common misconception and its just how it is. Its not fair to be angry at people for having this idea, its no one's fault its just how it is unless the RSPCA and RSPB and vets had a big publicity campaign to educate and this would obviously cost a lot of money and would only solve a problem that isnt all that much of a problem.

The sign as described I have thought would put most people off even going in! If that was the wording its actually quite unfriendly and makes the RSPB seem unapproachable and unhelpful and at worst uncaring - the amount of enquiries we get on here from people wondering what to do or who to go to for help with injured animals illustartes how unclear it is as to what to do!

It would have been better to have a sign up saying "if you have found an injured bird come in for information on who can help you' - therefore creating the double whammy of both helping those people who need it and informing people walking past that its not actually the RSPB itself that deals with injured birds. The perception of the RSPB would then be more positive and they might even get additional members out of it - how is that difficult or a bad thing? They can be firm about not taking the birds - they just don't have the facilities - they can also suggest that its too much of a strain to expect a local charity to be able to come out do to them needing as much of their money as possible for caring for the animals- but they could provide a flat pack cardboard carry case for a fiver and good directions to the nearest folk who can help - most people if they've cared enough to pick the bird up would go that extra distance if they have a car and if its made easy to do so.

I don't think its fair to have a go at people who have been left with a negative impression of the RSPB by their own experiance when the RSPB could have taken more care to be positive.

[almostnormal]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

But the thing is this is what an awful lot of people think..... an awful lot think that the RSPCA is for birds and the RSPCA is for everything else - this is a common misconception and its just how it is. Its not fair to be angry at people for having this idea, its no one's fault its just how it is unless the RSPCA and RSPB and vets had a big publicity campaign to educate and this would obviously cost a lot of money and would only solve a problem that isnt all that much of a problem.

The sign as described I have thought would put most people off even going in! If that was the wording its actually quite unfriendly and makes the RSPB seem unapproachable and unhelpful and at worst uncaring - the amount of enquiries we get on here from people wondering what to do or who to go to for help with injured animals illustartes how unclear it is as to what to do!

It would have been better to have a sign up saying "if you have found an injured bird come in for information on who can help you' - therefore creating the double whammy of both helping those people who need it and informing people walking past that its not actually the RSPB itself that deals with injured birds. The perception of the RSPB would then be more positive and they might even get additional members out of it - how is that difficult or a bad thing? They can be firm about not taking the birds - they just don't have the facilities - they can also suggest that its too much of a strain to expect a local charity to be able to come out do to them needing as much of their money as possible for caring for the animals- but they could provide a flat pack cardboard carry case for a fiver and good directions to the nearest folk who can help - most people if they've cared enough to pick the bird up would go that extra distance if they have a car and if its made easy to do so.

I don't think its fair to have a go at people who have been left with a negative impression of the RSPB by their own experiance when the RSPB could have taken more care to be positive.

do you know how many phonecalls the rspb fields every day on this subject? maybe on average about 50, the lodge more than that. so lets see thats what, about 18000 phonecalls a year? in each case the person who phones gets a polite and informative answer, i certainly did. maybe the sign could have been made a bit less unfriendly, but given how often people go in there with injured birds anyway i imagine the wording isn't really the problem. and fair or not, given the amount of RSPB bashing currently going on on the site its not unreasonable to suggest that before people write misinformation up on a thread, that they read about what the RSPB actually does and what their purpose actually is.

as to the second point - can you imagine what would be said about the rspb if they did carry carboard cases and sell them for a fiver? i think that at best the it would be seen as a moneymaking exercise, even if they were provided at cost.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by almostnormal

do you know how many phonecalls the rspb fields every day on this subject? maybe on average about 50, the lodge more than that. so lets see thats what, about 18000 phonecalls a year? in each case the person who phones gets a polite and informative answer, i certainly did. maybe the sign could have been made a bit less unfriendly, but given how often people go in there with injured birds anyway i imagine the wording isn't really the problem. and fair or not, given the amount of RSPB bashing currently going on on the site its not unreasonable to suggest that before people write misinformation up on a thread, that they read about what the RSPB actually does and what their purpose actually is.

as to the second point - can you imagine what would be said about the rspb if they did carry carboard cases and sell them for a fiver? i think that at best the it would be seen as a moneymaking exercise, even if they were provided at cost.

but most people aren't writing up 'mis' information intentionally - they are writing their opinion based on their experiences - you don't necesarily know what you know is wrong or inaccurate until someone else points it out if you know what I mean -

Yes I totally expect the RSPB get looaaadddsss of call as esp based on how many enquiries we get on here....... but what is the solution?

Plus if a shed is near enough to a site that regularly has injured birds - even if it was the National Trust or English Heritage - it would probably be the first port of call becuse its percieved as a building with public access and a phone and maybe even a perception that the people inside 'must come across this sort of thing all the time'.

I once picked up a an injured and rather snotty swan and my first port of call was the wildlife trust - even though I knew they themselves wouldn't be able to help I thought they'd probably know someone who could. - which they did, they were very friendly and very helpful.

As regards RSPB bashing I don't think there's any harm in suggesting that an organisation can do better - especially one as powerful and influential as the RSPB. - its better than sitting back quietly and watching something that was once great, decline into being something less than this when constructive critisim might help prevent it.

and the carry case - just an idea for places that have a regular problem - I certainly would be relieved if I had a box to put an injured animals in rather than keep it wrapped in my coat for a journey - and I would pay for it - selfishly because its makes me feel good to rescue animals!

My old carry case fell apart once at the vets when my cat exploded from it and I was so relieved when I could buy a new one, I didn't care that it wasn't free.

[annmaria]

Thank you Gill for your support. I did take an injured bird and got turned away, it was a duck, no ordinary duck . This was a very exhausted Scoter ( with a white bar on the wing) I was told it had been blown off course from the Tundra!! Any way my husband and I had to drive all the way to Martin Mere ( not sure of spelling ) they were very happy to receive it. The whole thing did cheese me off.
ALSO I do not appreciate both eeyore and Almostnormal talking down to me
I am well aware of all mthe great work the RSPB does ( That is why we pay our membership ) however I do not consider rotting swans a small matter, and if the RSPB fails to realise it had a duty to get involved then they can join the ranks of our corrupt politicians who take our money under false pretenses then do a runner when asked to do their job properly.
See you have got me going now.
Annmaria

[kent marshman]

Originally Posted by kent marshman

im not very good at getting my views over in words and it seems that im unhappy with just the rspb but infact its frustration with all the bodies concerned if they all spoke to each other maybe these problems could be sorted out sooner. its great to be able to interact with people who do care about wildlife,
thanks george

seems like ive stirred up a bit of a hornets nest which wasnt my intention well not with you nice people on wab, the bodies concerned could learn a lot from WAB site you've discussed the problem more in a few days than they have in 6yrs wish i had found this site years ago im sure i would have got some good advise and done things differently

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by annmaria

Thank you Gill for your support. I did take an injured bird and got turned away, it was a duck, no ordinary duck . This was a very exhausted Scoter ( with a white bar on the wing) I was told it had been blown off course from the Tundra!! Any way my husband and I had to drive all the way to Martin Mere ( not sure of spelling ) they were very happy to receive it. The whole thing did cheese me off.
ALSO I do not appreciate both eeyore and Almostnormal talking down to me
I am well aware of all mthe great work the RSPB does ( That is why we pay our membership ) however I do not consider rotting swans a small matter, and if the RSPB fails to realise it had a duty to get involved then they can join the ranks of our corrupt politicians who take our money under false pretenses then do a runner when asked to do their job properly.
See you have got me going now.
Annmaria

as may have been said once or twice it is not a matter of "failing" - the rspb has no power to get involved in the swan matter - the investigations dept cant do anything because the law is not being broken, the reserves teams cant do anything because they dont own the site in question , and the campaigns teams focus their limited resources on campaigns with national or international importance

Ditto with your rescued duck - I'm sure the rspb volunteers/staff care but what is a retail outlet suposed to do with an injured duck ? Martin mere have the facilities to help, but i am sure that if you had taken it to a WWT retail outlet I am equally sure that they to would have turned you away.

As regards talking down to you - I am sorry if you are offended, but if you a truly aware of "all the great work the RSPB do" then I am baffled as to how you can lump them with "corrupt politicians taking money under false pretences" because they didnt intervene in a matter where they have no power to do so.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by kent marshman

seems like ive stirred up a bit of a hornets nest which wasnt my intention well not with you nice people on wab, the bodies concerned could learn a lot from WAB site you've discussed the problem more in a few days than they have in 6yrs wish i had found this site years ago im sure i would have got some good advise and done things differently

Hi Kent - dont worry about it theres nothing like a bit of good healthy robust discussion

Just to be clear , I do agree that your situation vis a vis swan deaths is appaling and that both the Energy company and NE should have done more to help at an earlier stage - I just got a bit side tracked on the RSPB issue as i felt that they were (again) being unfairly criticised as they were unable to do anything in this case.

In the long term i suspect that the only true solution will be to put the cables under ground - whether the energy company is willing to go to this expense will remain to be seen , but as i said above your best chance of forcing the issue is to try them in the court of public opinion by keeping the media pressure on, I wish you luck with this , and hope the problem is soon resolved.

[kent marshman]

hi all its taken nearly 7 yrs and the deaths of countless swans but they've finally taken the power lines down, been a long time coming but i'm sure its been worth the effort, shows people power dose work sometimes.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by kent marshman

hi all its taken nearly 7 yrs and the deaths of countless swans but they've finally taken the power lines down, been a long time coming but i'm sure its been worth the effort, shows people power dose work sometimes.

Oh that's fantastic news well done!!!!!!

So so glad to hear it thank you for letting us know

[kent marshman]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

Oh that's fantastic news well done!!!!!!

So so glad to hear it thank you for letting us know

thankyou shows that us gamekeepers aint all that bad

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by kent marshman

thankyou shows that us gamekeepers aint all that bad

Oh I know that

[Tracey.A]

Originally Posted by annmaria

Well Kent Marshman seems this has got the almostnormal a bit hot under the collar! My family are RSPB members and although I appreciate what 'almost' is saying I do think the RSPB damages its image and probably puts lots of people joining the RSPB by being so negative about injured birds which are not on the endangered list . Often on the shore( Lytham St Annes ) their are injured birds, there is a RSPB shop right on the front which actually has a sign saying DO NOT BRING INJURED BIRDS HERE.......... crazy !
Annmaria

I don't understand why anyone would take an injured bird to the RSPB, they don't have the facilities or vets to take care of injured birds. That is why there are organisations like the RSPCA, who do deal with injured birds and animals. Sadly on occasions when this has been explained to the would be rescuer they can become very angry, which can be quite distressing for staff. The staff who work at the RSPB are not well paid and work extremely hard for a cause they truly believe in.

I take my hat off to you Kent Marshall, you have tirelessly fought on with this to get those responsible to do something to help prevent further deaths and injuries. I can understand your frustration at having to do this alone, however if the RSPB couldn't do anything other than offer advice, then it probably does mean that their hands are tied. The reserve should have records of all those swans that have been killed, that plus photos sent of to local papers will help. I hope they do bury the cables in the next few weeks and if they do, then it is entirely down to your determination to right a wrong.

All the best

Tracey

[Tracey.A]

Originally Posted by kent marshman

hi all its taken nearly 7 yrs and the deaths of countless swans but they've finally taken the power lines down, been a long time coming but i'm sure its been worth the effort, shows people power dose work sometimes.

I've just read your latest news