Norfolk bird-breeder accuses RSPCA of intimidation (1 Viewer)

Peewit · Feb 23, 2011

Hi there

A retired schoolteacher charged with possessing wild birds has accused the RSPCA of “intimidating” bird breeders across the country.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk_bird_breeder_accuses_rspca_of_intimidation_1_809170

A retired schoolteacher charged with possessing wild birds has accused the RSPCA of “intimidating” bird breeders across the country.

Edward William Easter, 71, appeared at King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court yesterday for the start of his trial on six wild bird charges.......

Now this to me just takes the biscuit, or is it taking the mick of the rights of all wild birds the right to have a free life, and it is illegal - end of story! :eek!::C:eek!:

I'm in shock!!!! :gh:

Regards
Kathy
x

lilyfenn · Feb 23, 2011

this story appeared in our local paper a few weeks ago. he was also charged with possessing dead bird, ie red backed shrike

Jacana · Feb 23, 2011

Peewit said:
and it is illegal - end of story!

Not if the birds weren't wild as the RSPCA suggest

Simon Wates · Feb 23, 2011

What bemuses and saddens me is apparently, it can be legal for non-conservation related captive breeding of Red-backed Shrike. Is this a fact?

Jacana · Feb 23, 2011

Simon Wates said:
What bemuses and saddens me is apparently, it can be legal for non-conservation related captive breeding of Red-backed Shrike. Is this a fact?

provided they are decended from birds captured before a certain date (that I can't remember off the top of my head) then yes. Re the Wildlife and Countyside Act. I'd imagine though that Red-backed Shrikes would have to be registered as they are a Schedule 1 bird.

Andrew Gibson · Feb 23, 2011

There was a case last year of a well respected bird breeder having red back shrikes, he was prosicuted.
As more imports are dwindling from asia and africa there is a rise in the number of british species on offer. Where does the original new stock come from?

mudman · Feb 23, 2011

The continent, quite a big interest in keeping and breeding 'british' birds in the low countries.

I was very surprised myself as it was mainly the commoner finches and thrushes which were kept in captivity in the UK, now all sorts of unusual species, like the shrikes mentioned above, are available and are I think originally obtained from the near continent.

Simon Wates · Feb 23, 2011

jacana said:
provided they are decended from birds captured before a certain date (that I can't remember off the top of my head) then yes. Re the Wildlife and Countyside Act. I'd imagine though that Red-backed Shrikes would have to be registered as they are a Schedule 1 bird.

Thanks Jacana.

Surely, although complicated, laws needing changes. Biology of shrikes surely incompatible with captivity = probable cruelty. Same true for all birds though really. Shocking

Simon

RogT · Feb 23, 2011

Its pretty disgusting isn't it, I'm sure many people would be shocked at the amount of British Birds that are kept illegally in the UK, what we hear about is the tip of the iceberg. I've seen 5 Cattle Egrets, 3 Little Egrets, a Godwit and Purple Gallinule in a 8ft by 10ft aviary with a concrete floor, and apparently this is legal!!! Some hobby!

Peewit · Feb 24, 2011

Emneth bird breeder “cannot prove” his birds are captive, court hears

The plot thickens as this man confesses that he cannot prove his birds are captive now.... as the trail continues...

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/emneth_...ve_his_birds_are_captive_court_hears_1_809701

…..The types of birds seized by the RSPCA include yellow wagtail, spotted flycatcher, red-backed shrike, grey wagtail, skylark, nuthatch, stonechat, pied wagtail, garden warbler, nightingale, and goldfinch…..

This is the link to the British bird Council that is mentioned in the press story.

http://britishbirdcouncil.com/index.htm

One step further in reading this part of the link above

http://www.britishbirdcouncil.com/legal_advice.htm

Regards
Kathy
x

MJB · Feb 25, 2011

Peewit said:
This is the link to the British bird Council that is mentioned in the press story. http://britishbirdcouncil.com/index.htm
One step further in reading this part of the link above http://www.britishbirdcouncil.com/legal_advice.htm. Regards Kathy x

Thanks for the links, Kathy.

From my own experience of either setting up or helping run small charity groups, the British Bird Council website is of interest in what it does not emphasise. It seems to avoid the need to state clearly what is required by current legislation, and what members need to do to comply with that. Instead, the mindset appears from the outset to be defensive, and not inclusive.

Note this verbatim quote, also:
'Take the greenfinch as an example. The differences in colour and markings between cocks and hens are spelt out and then common faults are described: “Colour impurities such as smokiness or too much grey suffusion, giving dark appearance, deformities, pear shaped, overweight on chest and vent area causing bad posture, poor presentation, insufficiently trained.”
Judges are advised as follows: “Where yellow and buff exhibits are of equal merit, yellow to take precedence. However, where a buff of good rich colour is of superior type, buff must then take precedence.”'

I'll leave others to splutter in their coffee about that!

Their title page asserts 'Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) approved supplier of rings'. You and I might be mistaken for thinking that this means that they scrutinise each application from a member to buy rings, and that they provide some kind of recommended standards of use and subsequent oversight of any non-compliance, but their rings page differentiates only between the prices for members and non-members. It's quite amazing that the whole concept seems to expect everyone purchasing rings will be familar with and comply with their sketchy outlining of the applicable legislation, seemingly promoting individual self-regulation on the basis of 'don't ask and we won't tell'...

Note this, too:
'IT REMAINS THE BREEDER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT BIRDS IN HIS POSSESSION ARE LEGALLY RINGED' (Their capitals).
In any small organisation, whether a charity or not, that, to me, is the finest 'slopy-shoulder' approach to responsibility.

The media reports make no mention of this organisation giving any kind of public support to the accused, or indeed to the reported extensive non-compliance with their advice on their website.
MJB
PS The accused was found guilty on all six charges and faces a fine of £20 000, including costs. Now if eggers and poisoners of wild birds were fined on the same basis...
PPS The British Broadcasting Corporation have total legal possession of the commercial or public use of the abbreviation 'BBC' and might object to its use by an organisation founded only 41 years ago...
MJB

Peewit · Feb 25, 2011

MJB said:
Thanks for the links, Kathy.

From my own experience of either setting up or helping run small charity groups, the British Bird Council website is of interest in what it does not emphasise. It seems to avoid the need to state clearly what is required by current legislation, and what members need to do to comply with that. Instead, the mindset appears from the outset to be defensive, and not inclusive.

Note this verbatim quote, also:
'Take the greenfinch as an example. The differences in colour and markings between cocks and hens are spelt out and then common faults are described: “Colour impurities such as smokiness or too much grey suffusion, giving dark appearance, deformities, pear shaped, overweight on chest and vent area causing bad posture, poor presentation, insufficiently trained.”
Judges are advised as follows: “Where yellow and buff exhibits are of equal merit, yellow to take precedence. However, where a buff of good rich colour is of superior type, buff must then take precedence.”'

I'll leave others to splutter in their coffee about that!

Their title page asserts 'Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) approved supplier of rings'. You and I might be mistaken for thinking that this means that they scrutinise each application from a member to buy rings, and that they provide some kind of recommended standards of use and subsequent oversight of any non-compliance, but their rings page differentiates only between the prices for members and non-members. It's quite amazing that the whole concept seems to expect everyone purchasing rings will be familar with and comply with their sketchy outlining of the applicable legislation, seemingly promoting individual self-regulation on the basis of 'don't ask and we won't tell'...

Note this, too:
'IT REMAINS THE BREEDER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT BIRDS IN HIS POSSESSION ARE LEGALLY RINGED' (Their capitals).
In any small organisation, whether a charity or not, that, to me, is the finest 'slopy-shoulder' approach to responsibility.

The media reports make no mention of this organisation giving any kind of public support to the accused, or indeed to the reported extensive non-compliance with their advice on their website.
MJB
PS The accused was found guilty on all six charges and faces a fine of £20 000, including costs. Now if eggers and poisoners of wild birds were fined on the same basis...
PPS The British Broadcasting Corporation have total legal possession of the commercial or public use of the abbreviation 'BBC' and might object to its use by an organisation founded only 41 years ago...
MJB

Thank you for your interesting post MJB. The links are somewhat odd to read to me - they give people rights to breed wild birds!

The outcome looked bleak for the man so he should have thought about the situation a little more deeply.

Like yourself, I have just read that the man has been charged as I knew he would as he had no proof that the birds where captive bred

Here is the link to read

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk...than_20_000_in_fines_and_court_costs_1_812531

Regards
Kathy
x

Peewit · Feb 25, 2011

Hi there

I still feel that the law is thin on the exact rules of keeping or killing any wild animal - at least there has been some progress between the issues of wild birds now and let it be a warning to any other person who commits this 'cruel' crime.

The thread about the 'Bird society' he is member of it makes very interesting reading to anyone that respects the freedom of wild birds. There is an area that is stated so that members can protect their own interests and has made me annoyed to read such stupidy.

Here is the link again

http://www.britishbirdcouncil.com/legal_advice.htm

It is although what is being said about legal issues is all set up for anyone to use if they are caught keeping any wild birds. It is contradicting the issues at hand and it is not a good omen for anyone in the bird society that this man is a member of.

Anyway, the long hand of the law has done its duty once more. :t:

Regards
Kathy
x

MJB · Feb 25, 2011

Peewit said:
Here is the link to read http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk...than_20_000_in_fines_and_court_costs_1_812531 Regards Kathy x/QUOTE]

Thanks Kathy,
The hard-copy version comes through my door about 6 am. Gives me time to get steamed up about local issues!:news::storm:
MJB

Neil-T · Feb 26, 2011

This kind of thing has been going on for decades. I have heard stories about local cage bird entusiasts concerning their trapping, the use of bird lime and other techniques to trap wild birds for breeding and showing. I think it still goes on in some places. It is just too easy for them to go out, trap wild birds (or even ring wild young birds in the nest and collect them later before the young fledge). Another link or probable reason of why our songbirds are becomming rarer.

Twite · Feb 26, 2011

MJB said:
Note this, too:
'IT REMAINS THE BREEDER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT BIRDS IN HIS POSSESSION ARE LEGALLY RINGED' (Their capitals).

I find this practice just as distasteful as you do and don't disagree with what you say. However the quoted statement is only to be expected. Any organization would only be expected to put down guidelines as to how it expects its members to behave, at all times within the law. An organization doesn't have statutory powers of the state (yeah, I know, stating the bleedin' obvious). It can suspend or expel members for wrongdoing or bringing its name into disrepute. A similar example would be a statement from a farmers union 'IT REMAINS THE FARMER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT LIVESTOCK IN HIS POSSESSION ARE LEGALLY TAGGED' That's about as much as they can do, advise members to obey the law.

Maybe I'm being naive here, I imagine the whole drive behind keeping these birds is competitive showing. If this is the case, illegal unringed birds undermines the reason for keeping them in the first place, showing them off.

At the risk of labouring the point, I don't like what they do. But if it's captive breeding vs taking birds from the wild. I'll take the lesser of two evils.

MJB · Feb 27, 2011

Twite said:
Any organization would only be expected to put down guidelines as to how it expects its members to behave, at all times within the law. An organization doesn't have statutory powers of the state (yeah, I know, stating the bleedin' obvious). It can suspend or expel members for wrongdoing or bringing its name into disrepute.

I agree entirely, but my point was that nowhere on this site was there any kind of statement of what the guidelines comprised, of any expressed requirement to comply with them, of any summary of the legal requirements, or any strong statement to condemn any members who flouted the guidelines or the law. In other words, they did not set standards. They did refer to how people could obtain legal advce and support if they were being investigated, and they did coyly refer to a booklet, but did not summarise its content.

Twite said:
Maybe I'm being naive here, I imagine the whole drive behind keeping these birds is competitive showing. If this is the case, illegal unringed birds undermines the reason for keeping them in the first place, showing them off. At the risk of labouring the point, I don't like what they do. But if it's captive breeding vs taking birds from the wild. I'll take the lesser of two evils.

No you are not being naive, and your point is well made, but one problem that captive breeders face is that feather and bare parts colours can lose saturation through the generations (one reason why huge numbers of Gouldian Finches were constantly taken from the wild in Australia to the point almost of extinction in the wild), which is why so many people have added wild birds to their collection of captive-bred show birds. The reverse of the coin is that there are no wild populations of blue Budgerigars, only green.
MJB

mudman · Feb 27, 2011

From what I can remember it was perfectly legal to possess un-rung british birds (at least the commoner ones that are kept, goldfinches, greenfinches, redpolls etc), it was though illegal to sell them. They could be given or exchanged but not sold. i do not know though if this applied for the more unusual birds that were kept, such as hawfinches, crossbills etc

fentiger48 · Mar 3, 2011

Firstly - IT IS QUITE LEGAL TO KEEP AND BREED BIRDS - BRITISH, FOREIGN, BUDGERIGARS OR CANARIES!

The ONLY proviso in respect of most species native to the UK is that they must be closed rung - i.e. with a closed ring of a specific size placed on the chicks leg at about 5 days old - if they are being sold or exhibited. In the UK it is legal to keep most species unrung if there is no intention to sell or exhibit - unlike Netherlands, where all native birds must be close rung.

The intention of a closed ring as per The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is to prove that the birds were close rung.

Under the original Act, paperwork was not required and the Act is misrepresented by the RSPCA.

Now we come to the RSPCA :-
The RSPCA has a Council of 25, of which 18 are supporters of Animal activist organisations, and one is a full blown active member of The Animal Liberation Front! Basically, a decent charity - with all its' massive income - has been hijacked by those who consider it is OK to dig up bodies and threaten people!

The RSPCA has a Criminal record - R v RSPCA 1984 (Perverting the course of Justice) and at least two cases of breach of The Dangerous Wild Animal Act. There are probably more convictions hidden by this wonderful organisation!

Anyone remember the "Gongotri" case where the RSPCA and Police raided a BUddhist Monastery - they forced an entry waving a "Search Warrant". It turns out that the "Search Warrant" was a false document - and the RSPCA paid out an undisclosed amount to the Moanstery as an ouot-of-court settlement under strict conditions of secrecy! Wonder how they wangled that payment on the books!

The RSPCA donated £1 MILLION to the Labour Party - under the guise of a payment made by Freedom Farms Ltd. One Million Pounds of money donated by misguided old ladies who thought that they were helping animals paid in a manner which can best be described as being of dubious legality.

You are all ranting about "the freedom of wild birds" - the birds in question are bred in cages and aviaries - to release them is to condemn them to death - and did none of you do-gooders read the point in the report that the birds were ordered to be destroyed - which the RSPCA will willingly do, as they did to the REd Backed Shrikes in a previous case!

MJB - your comments "one problem that captive breeders face is that feather and bare parts colours can lose saturation through the generations (one reason why huge numbers of Gouldian Finches were constantly taken from the wild in Australia to the point almost of extinction in the wild)" are completley and totally false! Captive breeders find that colour, size and bare parts colour do NOT decrease in captivity in fact they improve! Longtailed Grassfinches and Gouldian Finches have tail wires as good as any wild specimen! The Gouldian Finch is under threat from habitat problems - it has not been exported from Australia since 1960! If you are going to spout garbage - do try and get your facts right!

chris butterworth · Mar 3, 2011

Peewit said:
…..The types of birds seized by the RSPCA include yellow wagtail, spotted flycatcher, red-backed shrike, grey wagtail, skylark, nuthatch, stonechat, pied wagtail, garden warbler, nightingale, and goldfinch…..

I'm no expert on aviculture ( I had a pair of Zebra Finches when I was a kid ) but I wonder how he can claim the highlighted birds are 'captive-bred' when they are all migrants. Surely the urge to migrate would make them almost impossible to keep.

Chris

Norfolk bird-breeder accuses RSPCA of intimidation (1 Viewer)

Once a bird lover ... always a bird lover

Well-known member

Will Jones

Well-known member

Will Jones

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Once a bird lover ... always a bird lover

Well-known member

Once a bird lover ... always a bird lover

Once a bird lover ... always a bird lover

Well-known member

Moorlands Macro: Close up and personal....with bug

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

aka The Person Named Above

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread