Breeding Bitterns and access to the Coast (1 Viewer)

I refer to page 20 of this document: https://assets.publishing.service.g...itive-features-report-north-norfolk-coast.PDF

A friend has done the necessary research (thru Nflk Bird Reports, dating back to 1953) and informs me that he “saw nothing that suggests that Bitterns have successfully bred at Cley or Salthouse in recent times. Indeed I there was nothing to suggest that Bitterns have nested at Salthouse in the last 50 years or so, but in recent times the reports haven’t mentioned specific breeding sites.”

Now, have I missed booming from the extensive Salthouse reed-beds in my thousands of visits in the last 20 years ? Have various, expert local birders who are resident there done the same ?

This is intriguing: are there suitable areas lurking in the vicinity that we don’t know about ? I await further information with interest.

On ‘protection’: the great work done by NT/NWT staff (in line with sections of this document) to rope off parts of the (Salthouse) shingle for breeding Ringed Plovers/Oystercatchers/Avocets is being vandalised. Iron posts have been uprooted and flung down; the cordoning orange twine snipped. This appears mainly to have been done by people too lazy to walk around it, on their way to the Little Eye.

There are also proposals to prohibit/limit access to various sites on the Coast, for similar reasons. Commendable. Other reasons include ‘safety’: e.g. the constant rescuing of walkers stranded on East Hills, because they don’t know how the countryside ‘works’/can’t be bothered to read signs/take notice of tide tables, etc. Less welcome.

I wonder if people will start to take notice, now: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/proposa...ned-from-north-norfolk-salt-marshes-1-5515677

I've so far been asked if access to all of the dunes at Holme NWT will be denied and whether this means that no-one will be able to reach East Hills.

I can't bileeev that birders aren't more exercised.

Thank you for posting the links to the species and habitat assessments that consider the potential impacts of the England Coastal Path.

However, I hope people unhappy with NE’s proposals (which were drawn up in antipation of the England Coastal Path development plan) do read more than p20 to get a better idea of just how important the impacted areas are for breeding terns, redshanks and l.ringed plovers. (Also for winter feeding geese flocks, shorelarks etc.). In a nutshell, proposals and assessments largely conclude better enforcement of existing access restrictions during the breeding season and existing access restrictions already in place year round should avoid any significant impact from increased recreational use as a result of opening up the ECP.

They note that Holme sand dunes (and thus flora and fauna) in particular are already under heavy pressures from recreational use. The report reaffirms the need for ongoing vigilance in monitoring, wardening and public education to protect tern colonies (both Little and Sandwich), little ringed plover and redshank breeding sites etc. The report concludes temporary fencing has not prevented public access in some areas, with one Little Tern colony being significantly impacted as a result. Unfortunately a large part of the funding for this was as a result of the Eu LIFE project so as with the other LIFE projects that came to an end this year, the slack will need to be picked up through other sources of funding.

There seems to be a bit of confusion about how extensive the proposals actually are cf to what is already in place

http://www.norfolkcoastaonb.org.uk/mediaps/pdfuploads/pd004582.pdf

I hope birders unhappy with route curtailment during the breeding season especially, can see the bigger conservation picture rather than see restricted accesses, fencing and signage as an infringement of some inalienable right to go birding where ever or when ever we want. We should lead by example imo. maybe offering a few hours volunteer wardening would be the solution thereby maintaining ‘private’ access and helping breeding birds to boot!

http://www.norfolkcoastaonb.org.uk/partnership/latest-news/67

99.9% of statistics are b--ls--t! Excuse my French.
We have been told that they have consulted stakeholders - not very transparent when no-one know who those alleged stakeholders are. And no-one can confirm any stakeholder who has been consulted? If it smells like it, it probably is................
As a dog owner it amazes me that so many areas are available to dogs. Some of the dog owners are just plain stupid, they believe that they have the right to go anywhere and do anything they want. My answer would be to ban dogs, then a great deal of your problems (like ground nesting birds) go with them.
Gareth

I hope you’re not suggesting that we plebs should accept all our ‘lords & masters’ inflict on us, without question ? Especially from this sad, fractured apology for a government.

I’m sure they would prefer us in corralled in ticketed and sanitised private reserves, so they don’t need to bother about such things. Anyway, the countryside is so dangerous. Soon, we’ll have notices every 10m along the coastline: “Beware water: danger of drowning !”

Where there are breeding birds, I’ve already said they should be protected. They are, in any case, by legislation. Enforcement is the key, here. Even with Little Terns, wardens cannot be on permanent watch. (Although, I do recall 24-hour volunteers, in the early days of Avocets.)

As you say: “temporary fencing has not prevented public access in some areas”. This is because a minority of people deliberately ignore such. What difference would a permanent restriction make ? There are three main culprits (in a non-hierarchical order of ‘damage’): egg collectors, (a minority of) dog walkers and self-serving bird photographers/twitchers.

At Salthouse, I regularly witness and report instances of the above to the NT - together with deliberate damage to/vandalism of/removal of the temporary fencing installed to protect breeding birds. This also applies to the (permanent) notice put up by the EA (torn off and thrown in a ditch), informing about the shingle ridge and its protective capacity.

My main objection to the proposals is the complete ban on access to East Hills, which has little justification.

Breeding Bitterns and access to the coast.

Putting aside for one moment, the rights and wrongs of a total ban on public access to parts of the North Norfolk coastline, one wonders how such a ban would be enforced.

It has been suggested that volunteer wardens might step into the breech but would they be willing to be subjected to the inevitable verbal and physical abuse. For some time, and as mentioned on this thread, temporary fencing and warning signage has been torn down but I'm not aware of a single prosecution as a result.

There is also the issue of the spurious ‘evidence’ – upon which no-one has commented and is how this thread began.

If one piece of so-called ‘proof’, which is manifestly ropey, is published, how many other fallacies are there ?

The Minister won’t know about the veracity of breeding Bitterns or Penduline Tits, will he ?

firstreesjohn said:

There is also the issue of the spurious ‘evidence’ – upon which no-one has commented and is how this thread began.

If one piece of so-called ‘proof’, which is manifestly ropey, is published, how many other fallacies are there ?

The Minister won’t know about the veracity of breeding Bitterns or Penduline Tits, will he ?

Click to expand...

SILENCE ! Inneresting.