UKC

I have just watched a programme about bird enthusiasts called Born to be Wild on BBC 4 (should be on the i-player shortly).

There was a feature about 2 birders in Northern Ireland who were ringing pergrine chicks. You ought to watch this - one of the guys abseiled down a quarry wall to a peregrines nest with 4 fairly large chicks that had obviously not fledged. He grabbed the birds and stuffed then into a zipped rucksac before abseiling to the ground where they were ringed, put in a closed sack to be weighed and then returned to the rucksack for a further abseil back to the nest. It looked like the rucksac was not big enough for four chicks so presumably this whole performance was repeated more than once. I would imagine the whole exercise must have taken at least a couple of hours, possibly quite a bit longer.

The chicks could not fly and were clearly not fending for themselves so presumably their survival depended on the return of the parent birds to the nest.

Now, bird enthusiasts frequently insist that climbers stay completely away from peregrine nests because the disturbance arising from doing any climbing in the vicinity might cause the breeding/raising of chicks to fail.

We are asked to stay off entire crags even when there may be many climbs that are not within line of sight of the birds.

We are banned from the area until the chicks have fledged (i.e. flown from the nest)

But when it comes to bird enthusiasts wanting to ring peregrines it would seem that a massively greater degree of disturbance than could ever arise from climbers is perfectly ok and will do the birds no harm?

So are we being conned by the birding interests?

Looks that way to me

I suggest the BMC record this episode of Born to be Wild and wheel it out as a precursor to any future discussions about climbing restrictions relating to peregrines.

In reply to colin struthers: Troll

In reply to higherclimbingwales: What bit do you think is a troll? Check the programme out for yourself

In reply to colin struthers: people arent being asked to keep off the whole of Malham because of the peregrines.

In reply to colin struthers:

As I understand it, the usual justification is that it's impossible to tell the difference between climbers and people stealing eggs/chicks. So they ban everyone.

So once peregrines become common again (fingers crossed but we're going in the right direction), the bans should be reduced and maybe disappear - that's if the habit of imposing them hasn't become too ingrained.

In reply to Fawksey:

they are however being kept off the whole of Darby Delph - the reason being that eggs have been stolen in the past. Perhaps at Malham they reckon there are too many people around for thieves to work unnoticed?

In reply to Fawksey:

But they are being asked to keep off the whole of Hoghton and quite a few other extensive crags - as you will see if you check the BMC regional access data-base

In reply to colin struthers: ok thats good to know. Fawksey (RSPB member and just back from Mull watching sea eagles)

back to Springwatch.

In reply to colin struthers: I doubt they are ringing the birds in their capacity as enthusiasts. I would imagine they are skilled amatuers collecting data. It's not as though bird protection is awash with money so I'd imagine they welcome sensible, proven volunteers (just a guess like)

And I'd imagine a couple of hours disruption as a one off to gether data is a very small risk compared to climbers being there all day at any time.

The only surprising thing is that you need someone else to point this out.

In reply to Toreador:

The argument about disturbing the nest is very often advanced quite forcibly by birding interests - indeed at the crag with which I am most familiar, Hoghton, that has pretty much been the whole argument.

The issue about theft of eggs/chicks is another matter

But...

Has a genuine climber ever been charged with peregrine egg/chick theft?

Would the average climber witnessing someone directly approaching a nest site ignore what was going on?

If you were going to steal chicks/eggs would you not prefer to do so without the risk of climbers turning up to see what you were doing?

Are peregrines nests not a lot safer if climbers, who are generally very pro-nature, are there to keep an eye on them?

In reply to Tyroneslater:

What is surprising is that you are daft enough to think that a climber on a route that might well be yards from the nest could possibly be as disturbing to a peregrine chick as being plucked from its nest and stuffed in a rucksac.

Watch the programme.

In reply to colin struthers: shouldnt this thread have been titled "climbing restrictions - are we being conned?"

In reply to colin struthers: Other things you may have noticed in the countryside. We dont allow our dogs to chase sheep but farmers do. Do you think we are being conned in this instance too?

In reply to Fawksey:

No, to be completely fair to him, the post did include restricted peregrines. I'd imagine it's hard to move about in a sack.

In reply to Fawksey:
Have you actually watched this programme yet?

The fact of the matter is that 4 peregrine chicks are being stuffed in a sack and moved from their nest - do you think they are less disturbed by this because they know the person doing the stuffing is an ornithologist?

I think the programme shows that peregrine chicks are a lot more robust and able to tolerate disturbance than we are led to believe whenever the question of climbing and peregrines comes up.

In reply to Fawksey:

No but they are asked to keep off the whole of Blue Scar which is much more extensive. I'm genuinely bewildered by the lack of consistency on the bans.

In reply to colin struthers:

did they go back to see how they fared after? did they go to see if they used the same nest site the year after? if they didn't then that doesn't show that they weren't disturbed.

In reply to higherclimbingwales: I assume that people with enough expertise to be in the business of ringing peregrine chicks also know enough about the birds to be sure that they are not causing them any significant harm.

I don't have a problem with what they were doing - all I want is a bit of consistency when the impact of climbing on peregrines is being considered -after all, we are often expected to keep far enough away from the nest to ensure the birds don't even see us. How can that really be necessary if 'peregrines in the sack' is an ok activity

In reply to colin struthers:

I know of a vast crag that has been banned all year round for the last 35 years because of the peregrines!

In reply to Pylon King:

Well you could look at it this way, we as humans do have rather a lot of places to live work and play. The peregrines don't have that many. I reckon we're ahead of the game.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

It's pretty simple - it's a criminal offence to disturb a protected species, so if such a species is spotted nesting, then arrangements are made to inform climbers to help them stay out of jail. It's got nothing to do with climbers being suspected of egg stealing or anything.

As regarding the chick ringing etc, some climbers I know in the Peak help out with this. I'll see what the crack is with the timing etc for it. It may be that the conservation knowledge gained is felt to be worth the disturbance.

I think painting things as bird fanciers vs climbers is a bit off Colin, these days its a partnership and we fight our corner hard. Without the wildlife we might as well be climbing indoors, so I'm quite happy with bird bans as long as they're reasonable. It's hard not to get myopic when you're obsessed like most climbers are (myself included) but its good to try and see the bigger picture.

In reply to colin struthers:
You do realise that at the age they are ringed, the concern is more about the parents than the chicks, right?

Young chicks: one brief disturbance will not cause them to starve, continuous disturbance by climbers may cause problems. What exactly do you want here for climbers? A register to sign in so that only one party climbs every day to make sure they are not disturbed continuously!?

Older chicks: may fledge prematurely if disturbed. I doubt any ornithologist would go near them without an exceptionally good reason.

In reply to danm:
>
I understand that. What I don't understand is why it is OK to climb relatively close to the Malham peregrines (only a handful of routes are baned and the rest of the crag is heaving with climbers and birdwatchers) but at Blue climbs which are much further from the nest than the permitted routes at Malham are banned. Who decides the size of the exclusion zone and on what basis?

In reply to Wiley Coyote: it will be a compromise between the demand for climbing and the pressure for a ban, dependent in part on the level of demand for climbing

In reply to colin struthers:
Hah, before this thread came up I'd been thinking for a while that it reflects very well on climbers that while you can trawl up a few nutters on UKC to defend the most bonkers stances (in any direction) on stuff like ethics and bolting, as soon as actual wildlife concerns kick in there's a tacit "sure thing" and no quibbling...

In reply to tonanf:

But that makes no sense. If the birds at Malham are being disturbed then, as has been said, it's a criminal offence and 'demand for climbing' does not enter into it. If on the other hand they are not disturbed by climbers being that close - and the evidence year after year suggests they are not - why is it necessary to ban the whole of Blue rather than just a similarly-sized section around the nest. I don't see how two such grossly different sized exclusion zones can both be correct. I'm not against apropriate bans to protect the peregrines but logic suggests that either one if far too small or the other is far too extensive.
So let me ask again: what are the criteria used to decide the size of the banned areas and what are they based on?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

The same with Chapel Head Scar. Why not ban the buttress the birds are on and let climbers keep an eye on the birds?

Andy F

In reply to colin struthers:
>

Colin I think you have a point but which climbers are these then?

E

In reply to colin struthers:

>>It looked like the rucksac was not big enough for four chicks so presumably this whole performance was repeated more than once. I would imagine the whole exercise must have taken at least a couple of hours, possibly quite a bit longer.

Colin, I've helped out with ringing Peregrines a few times - doing the abseiling, bagging and returning bit for ringers not au fait with harnesses, ropes and heights themselves.

I must admit the first time I was surprised how long it took. The chicks usually get two rings each and are also measured and weighed as part of the process. However, even with four chicks (the usual maximum) which are well grown - and hence both physically more awkward to ring and generally more lively - the chicks would not be out of the nest for more than half an hour. With less or younger chicks the process can be much quicker.

At the sites I've visited there has been no public access, so that is the only direct disturbance the birds are likely to receive. The adults show some signs of distress (circling, hecking call) but don't go hysterical. With their powerful eyesight I daresay they can see clearly that the chicks have been removed, but without anthropormorphising its hard to guess what distress is caused.

I got the impression the process has been carefully developed over the years and the ringers have a good idea of exactly what the birds will tolerate. Other species have different levels of tolerance. Plus the older the chicks get, the stronger the parents' attachment becomes. So the same level of disturbance when incubating or with younger chicks could well cause the parents to desert. Ringers are not just enthusiasts - they need a licence to ring protected birds like Peregrines and those are not handed out lightly. Competence and experience must be proven first.

Does this mean climbers could climb near nests without causing the birds to desert? Well I'm sure you could - but only if all the conditions were right. But of course the ringers only visit once whereas climbing disturbance would be very likely to be repeated. Then the problem is that without a licence - and you won't get one for climbing - you are breaking the law just by disturbing the birds, even if there is no lasting damage done.

The real question that this raises for the future is how the list of protected birds (the 'Schedule 1 list') goes forward. If populations such as the Peregrine's recover (and levels now are probably higher than for 100 years), should they should be taken off the list? Should the level of protection reflect the scarcity of a species, or the state of its population, or its sensitivity to disturbance? Common sense might suggest removing successful species, but that seems unlikely as once a species has a public profile it is hard to suggest they are no longer important. Kingfishers, for example, have always been on the list without any clear threat, perhaps because they appeal to a public idea of what a rare, valuable bird looks like. With Peregrines, there will be a strong case for ongoing protection as they have clear threats from gamekeepers, pigeon fanciers, falconers etc.

In reply to Enty:
>>
I think Colin has a point as bans seem to be differently imposed on different crags. How you would overcome that I don't know.

In reply to Tyroneslater:

although its ok to shoot Magpies?

I actually support bans on crags, i think every crag should have a percentage of it that is banned from climbing all year to allow nature to do its own thing.

In reply to Pylon King:

>> I met a French couple recently who wanted to do some climbing as they were over here anyway,but they thought that the bird nesting ban applied to all UK crags in the Spring, so they they didn't bring their climbing gear.

I see - so as soon as a 'wildlife' issue arises climbers simply need to accept whatever restrictions might be proposed irrespective of whether the restrictions are proportionate or reasonable? That's it, no quibbling, end of etc.

What were you saying about nutters adopting bonkers positions.

In reply to Adam Long:


So is there a legal distance that you can stay away from the nest without breaking the law?

In reply to colin struthers:

I would like to be the first to lay claim to the newly created sport of 'perisacking'. I plan to expand this to 'penguinsacking' and then form the Extreme Sacking League of 'ostrisacking'.



On a more serious note. I do think you may have a point. However I can’t see anything being done about it. PETA, RSPB and any other animal related acronym will just get up in arms and they are far more 'proactive' than the BMC. Best just to not let this one bother you too much.

In reply to pyle:

that's the french for you

In reply to colin struthers:
It would be rather interesting to see the reaction if a Peregrine or better still a Ring Ouzel made nesting moves on the Prow, won`t name names but theres a few I could imagine getting their air rifles out. Maybe invite the Gun Club over for a special session. LOL

In reply to Pylon King:

The wording on the NE website runs like this:

'In addition to the protection from killing or taking that all birds, their nests and eggs have under the Act, Schedule 1 birds and their young must not be disturbed at the nest.'

So no, there is no specific distance quoted - which makes sense as different birds with have different levels of tolerance. So birds on a remote crag in the mountains will usually be more sensitive than the ones that choose to nest on a busy crag like Malham. I've been to crags in Scotland where the parents won't even approach the nest if there are people visible anywhere in the glen.

In reply to colin struthers:


I'm quite amazed that you cannot see that there might be a difference between

1)a single, quite intrusive disturbance, to ring chicks;

and 2) and the potential for several disturbances per day, day after day, week after week caused by climbers - some of whom apparently don't give a hoot as long as they get what they want...


Do you really think that those two situations are identical?



I suspect the BMC can see the difference, though...

In reply to Adam Long:

That makes sense.
So why the restrictions at Darby Delph (a few feet from a major A road, and in a quarry frequented by 'youths')?
Why no restrictions on some of the remote crags?

There are places, both busy and quiet, where there are no formal restrictions; the birds make it obvious when we're too close to the nest, so we move away until they stop complaining. As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, there are other places where blanket bans are imposed. There's at least one crag where the supposed presence of (non-existent) peregrines was used to try to ban climbing a few years ago.

In reply to colin struthers:

The difference is, the ringers are imposing a necessary disturbance for the preservation of the birds.

The climbers are imposing an unnecessary disturbance for their own leisure.

Am I missing something?

In reply to Ed Brighteldman:


Yes. The whole question of why, if the bans are necessary - and there seems broad agreement that they do serve a purpose - are they so patchwork and inconsistent? No one has yet put up a satisfactory answer that bears any scrutiny at all.

In reply to Ed Brighteldman:

Yes, you are. The welfare of the birds is a public good. Access to leisure is also a public good, albeit of a different kind. The point at issue is how we strike a reasonable balance between the two.

I would argue that if he presence of climbers can be managed so as to cause only slight disturbance to peregrines then there is a case for reviewing current arrangements for the protection of peregrines - as seems to have happened at Malham with the approval of birding interests.

If the absolute best interests of birds was the only consideration and there was no need to strike a compromise with leisure activties then logically shouldn't we stop climbing on any cliff that represents a potential new nesting site for an endangered species - such as all 4 miles of Stanage which I'm sure would have a lot more nesting ring ousels if we didn't climb there. Oh, and on the same grounds pretty much all of the gritstone edges in the Peak District

In reply to Wiley Coyote: Disturbing these birds is illegal wherever they are, it's just that some popular or high profile sites need disturbance bans made explicit.

different birds with have different levels of tolerance. So birds on a remote crag in the mountains will usually be more sensitive than the ones that choose to nest on a busy crag like Malham

Which is a very interesting point as it suggests that peregrines are perfectly capable of habituating themselves to the close presence of humans - and if this is true it rather begs the question of what long term useful purpose blanket climbing bans serve other than to encourage the peregrines to remain highly sensitive.

That successful peregrine breeding and intense human activity at very close range can go hand in hand is perhaps illustrated by the expanding colony of nesting peregrines in central London.

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/resources/listimg/birds/Birds_april_09/peregri...

Should we close the West End of London to make sure there is no chance of them being disturbed?

In reply to colin struthers:


The habituation happens quite slowly - over generations I think - and still relies on the actual nest site itself being undisturbed. I'd guess if the size of the restriction on Malham was reduced slightly every year, the birds would desert the place well before climbers were allowed access to the nest.


Colony isn't really the right word, but I know what you mean. Having done a fair bit of rope access work over the years, including on the Barbican, I can assure you that the average London high-rise rooftop is very unlikely to be visited by anyone at all, and can feel like a very remote place.

>If the absolute best interests of birds was the only consideration and there was no need to strike a compromise with leisure activities then logically shouldn't we stop climbing on any cliff that represents a potential new nesting site for an endangered species - such as all 4 miles of Stanage which I'm sure would have a lot more nesting ring ousels if we didn't climb there

I'm not sure about 'a lot more', or even that numbers would rise at all. The decline of Ring Ouzels has little to do with disturbance, particularly with the way the nest sites are protected currently. You could argue that much of the time the presence of climbers helps deter predators from approaching.

>The whole question of why, if the bans are necessary - and there seems broad agreement that they do serve a purpose - are they so patchwork and inconsistent?

Stanage's Ring Ouzels are a good example here too. In a typical year there might be ten or so nesting attempts at Stanage. Only two or three of those would attract a climbing restriction - the others, usually on less popular areas of crag, would be left alone as signs can attract unwanted attention.

However it is also true that application of the law varies from place to place and time to time. At places like Malham you've got a compromise reached over the years which has allowed time to observe the birds. When Peregrines turn up in a new area - as they did on The Roaches a few years back - excited local birders tend to push for restrictions which are over-large.

In reply to colin struthers:

>Should we close the West End of London to make sure there is no chance of them being disturbed?

I think the Barbican's already closed to climbing pretty much year-round anyway.

jcm

In reply to colin struthers:



Yes I agree. But the potential damage to the welfare of the birds is massive whereas the damage to access to leisure is fairly small. If we're allowed to disturb the peregrines the result may (possibly) be dramatic for their population. But if we're prevented from climbing at a particular cliff, all that happens is that we have to go elsewhere. That's why you can't attach equal weight to both 'public goods'. That surely means the balance has to be in favour of the birds and therefore perhaps slightly heavy handed bans are proportionate?

For the sake of being safe rather than sorry, I'd rather be slightly inconvenienced as to where I'm allowed to climb.

Hope that makes sense!

In reply to colin struthers:

I've been involved with ringing Peregrines (stuffing them into the rucksack as you say) for about 20yrs now.

I can certainly say that they are resiliant birds and return to the nest after a short disturbance readily. But.....it's not an exact science. The birds differ - they do have their own 'character'. This perhaps points to the need for an all encompassing approach rather than a site by site.
Our visits to the nest sites have usually been pretty quick and planned to be as such. Perhaps half hour for 4 chicks when ringing and collecting DNA. Obviously climbing disturbance would not be planned and would not be based on a knowledge of that location and those birds.

You do raise an interesting point though. The rules are based on Peregrine populations of decades ago - they are much more successful now (climbing bans have contributed to this of course).

In reply to Ed Brighteldman:
But who decides what is reasonable ?

In reality it appears to be the various "Birders" around, with THEIR various views on what THEY believe should happen. There do not appear to be any national guidelines, and some of these (quite small) groups seem to be using the "poor protected birds" as an excuse to tell everyone else what to do.

Do Peregrines really want the isolation that some people demand ?
The Roaches is a classic example.
The birds nest at the busiest part of one of the busiest crags in England (I've found people there midweek in November and January)
So when was it quiet enough for a few days for them to set up home ?

Then one of their "minders" decided to attack people (verbally only, or was there physical violence involved ?) who stopped below their site (on a public right of way) en route to another area - causing far more noise than everyone else.

Some years ago it was believed that keeping climbers away from moorland crags during periods of high fire risk was a good thing.
It was then realised that we made damn good fire wardens, and now we're allowed in, and encouraged to keep our eyes open in case these fires start up.
Isn't our presence near to nesting Peregrines (and other rare birds) more likely to prevent the egg collectors from their sick hobby.

On a final note, remember the unrest when it was suggested that the RSPB might manage North Lees. Deep down we're ALL wary to some degree or another about the bird-fanciers and watchers, and the extent to which some of them will go for their hobby to the exclusion of all others (and for that matter those who work in the countryside).

In reply to fred99:
Deep down we're ALL wary to some degree or another about the bird-fanciers and watchers, and the extent to which some of them will go for their hobby to the exclusion of all others (and for that matter those who work in the countryside).


Am certainly not wary of the bird fanciers and watchers. There is a balance to be had. I would much prefer to keep away from the crag for a few months of the year and see the birds thrive. The route will always be there to climb. Its important we protec these species thats part of what makes going out into the country so stimulating

In reply to Kipper-Phil Smith:

Not that far from where I live is the crag earlier referred to as having a 12-month ban due to nesting peregrines.
There is no logical reason for a 12-month ban, and indeed the incursion of (immigrant non-native) ivy will, sooner or later, bring the entire cliff crashing down, rendering it useless for either climbing or nesting upon.

The problem, if you had read what I wrote, is the ridiculous inconsistency of the bans throughout the country.
I also know of a good few locations where we, as climbers, acknowledge a periodical ban, but the locals (youths as Toreador so rightly puts it), never have or will.
Furthermore, at most locations, especially those frequented by "youths", the Peregrines decided to nest whilst human activity was present. So why do they suddenly require the complete removal of climbers from their (extremely good) eyesight.

I have yet to read any sensible answer to this question.
All that keeps being re-iterated is that we must keep clear of them.
In principle I have no problem with this, but why are there so many diferent views on what is correct. Logically there should be one answer, and I would appreciate some scientist coming up with it, and providing us with the scientific evidence. Then ALL parties (birders, climbers, youths et al) should be required to observe same.

The repeating of the legal aspect is all very well, but how do you define "disturb". There's enough discussion in law courts about what is "reasonable defence" and "justifiable" in the view of a reasonable person's mind, so how can we be expected to understand what's going on in a bird's.

The people keeping watch on the peregrines in Warton Main are closer to the nest than climbers would be on the trad routes around Plastic Iceberg. These people are not exact hunkered down in hides either but rather coming and going in cars, chatting away in large groups and exercising their dogs all over the floor of the quarry.

I'm not criticising them in any way as the birds are happily oblivious to it all and have enough to worry about with the ravens stealing their eggs. But it is odd that apparently the appearance of a climber would be so disruptive.

I remember in the days before bird bans, there was a peregrine nesting below the traverse on Troutdale Pinnacle. It was always nice to see the brood progress as we trailed past day after day.

In reply to colin struthers:

Personally I don't fancy being attacked by and angry protective peregrine parental. But that again thats just my opinion.

Is there such a big problem with avoiding a crag for a 1/4 of the year. It not only gives the vegetation around the crag chance to regenerate but it give you the perfect opportunity to go and explore other crags in the area and expand your climbing cv!

Good day to you sir.

In reply to mlmatt:

I've never known a Peregrine attack (or even come near)somebody on the nest site. Mind you, a friend of mine was attacked by a Buzzard (and it did some damage) when running through a wood so I suppose anything is possible. Not normal though.

In reply to Kipper-Phil Smith:

And I would much prefer to keep away from the small section of the crag where my presence might make a difference, while continuing to climb elsewhere on the same crag.

In reply to colin struthers:
This is a subject quite close to my heart as you probably know Colin! I agree with a lot of what you're saying but it's important to strike a balance between pushing against illogical restrictions and keeping other interested parties (ie landowners, wildlife conservsation bodies and local councils) happy.

The cliff I'm most interested in is Castell y Gwynt. If the chicks successfully fledge and the birds are no longer present on the cliff, before the restriction date runs out, then you can't be disturbing something which isn't there and therefore I'd be confident challenging anyone who said I shouldn't be climbing there. Earlier in the year when the parents are looking for nesting sites is a different matter.
However - how you find out whether a peregrine is there or not and whether you're unlawfully disturbing it if it does end up being present seems less than clear. In an ideal world that's what the BMC and the conservation bodies are doing by imposing restrictions - they're letting climbers know a protected species is present and the rough dates between which it could be present. In reality the restrictions are sometimes clumsily imposed and managed, and inquisitive climbers will always find it hard to respect that kind of sitaution. The Gwynt restriction as it's imposed at the moment and taken to it's logical conclusion, can potentially mean that you aren't allowed to climb on an amazing cliff for 4 months of a 6 month window of optimum conditions, because of fear of disturbing something which isn't actually there. Nobody changes the signage on the cliff top, and earlier this year if you went off the most up-to-date information available you could (would) have ended up climbing and thinking there wasn't a peregrine there when it is in fact present (which makes me think some of the routes I climbed on the righthand side needn't be banned at all). The only reason the info on the BMC access database was changed was because I and other climbers went and climbed there and one of the climbers discovered the peregrine.

The ideal (for climbers at least) is to have an intelligent, flexible approach with pro-active people involved on all sides. Examples of this sort of flexibility in action are Craig Arthur in Clwyd, often the Peregrine restriction there is lifted early or not applied at all if the birds don't nest. Ideally we'd have that sort of flexible approach on most of the crags with restrictions but it only happens when the right people get involved, I imagine Malham has a similar situation where an intelligent application of the rules is in place.

Where there isn't such a close interaction between climbers and conservation bodies/landowner etc the default position seems to be one of over-cautiousness from many climber's points of view (in length of ban and extent of the area covered) - the 'sandford principle' in action as described to me by one access officer. From talking to people with far more knowledge than me of what goes on in the backround, there's a worrying possibility of more severe interpretations of European wildlife laws being imposed by landowners and trustees in the future, with negative consequences for climbing access.

In reply to colin struthers: I'm still partly convinced this thread is the domain of a quite ingenious troll. I think the most worrying element are the frequent references to 'birding interests' as if looking after a protected species is some sort of idle hobby.

Not being able to see the difference between disturbing birds once to allow them to be monitored and hundreds of climbers trampling through a nest is ridiculously short-sighted, but what is clear is that if the species is recovering and nests are more widespread then the BMC should look into better communication about the reason behind bans and whether they could be more consistently applied, although it's hardly ever going to be an exact science.

But then some people are always going to be cheesed off that they can't climb cos of those 'feckin shitehawks' and they'll never be convinced. In that case since disturbing a protected species is, I believe, a rather heavily punishable offence, I think you should look a bit more kindly on the climbing bans.. they're there to save you a holiday at Her Majesty's pleasure!

In reply to stouffer:

Good lord! I thought they were to protect birds.

It could be a reduction in poisoning that is having the effect of increasing Peregrine numbers, and nothing at all to do with disturbance. But with your attitude that question can't be addressed, and we carry on in an unscientific vacuum.

In reply to colin struthers:

You know, the fact that you could probably climb near the birds without disturbing them too much isn't really the big issue here.

Nature, conservation and caring for the environment are a big part of climbing for a lot of people, and when you consider that many crags aren't owned by climbers, you can understand why the BMC and (most) climbers want to make a clear gesture for supporting things like bird bans. I'm not sure, but doesn't the RSPB own land in which some crags are situated? In which case, the proactive approach taken by the BMC to respect nesting birds only has to be praised.

As for your fears over whether these birds are being improperly handled by the bird experts, well that's a separate issue altogether. I trust that their activities are helping peregrine populations, because otherwise I'm sure the RSPB would have something to say about it. Either way, if someone was found to be disturbing the birds in a damaging way, it doesn't really justify further and unnecessary disturbance from anyone else... ("that person just dropped litter, so why should I take my rubbish home?" etc)

In reply to Frogger:

Isn't it?

In reply to Toreador: Any fact containing 'probably' probably isn't going to be a very good fact.

Fact. (Probably.)

In reply to colin struthers: I really don't see what the fuss is all about. Its not like there aren't plenty of other places to climb.

In reply to digby:


Well I think you missed my ever so tongue-in-cheek point.


Given the Red Kites killed by poisoning in the North East, I doubt it.

When I said the BMC should look at bans should be more consistently applied, I was kinda agreeing with you though, maybe I should have said review how they are applied. Year-round climbing bans in one place and no bans in others is clearly confusing people. I'm saying that without any knowledge of how the current process works though, it'd be nice to hear from an access officer about how it is decided.

But then how are you going to scientifically test what does or doesn't disturb the birds? Stand at the bottom of a crag with a tambourine from March to July and see if any birds nest? Ultimately with a protected species we are better safe than sorry and that's why bans will be seen as draconian to some, which they aren't.

In reply to stouffer: Ahem, nobody at all on this thread has even remotely argued that climbers should climb 'through' a peregrines nest and, frankly, your suggestion that this is what any of us want to do is idiotic.

Furthermore, I have never advocated ignoring peregrine nesting restrictions (as you will see if you read the thread I put up recently re Hoghton Quarry) Nor am I ever likely to do so. Neither has anyone else on this thread.

But the point that quite a few posters have actually made is that the extent of restrictions currently applied may be unreasonable or disproportionate and that climbers may therefore need to engage with conservation bodies to achieve some change.

It is a point you seem to have missed in your rush to wrongly ascribe a set of unreasonable opinions to those with whom you desperately want to disagree with.

In reply to colin struthers: I think the point about the restrictions neding looking at is valid. I had a long chat about a crag with an RSPB bloke who was in charge of progtectingsite at a Northumbrian crag where there were Perigrines. He made a point, which I haven't seen here, that the farther into the season you get the less likely the birds are to desert the nest, because they have put more energy into the chicks. He thought banning the whole place until the end of July was probably OTT. Maybe the bans could be reduced to a smaller area towards the end of the season?

In reply to JDal:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=462198#x6425146
Fifth paragraph.

In reply to colin struthers:
Hi Colin
Apologies that I can't give a comprehensive answer right now, as I'm taking a couple of days off and am hoping to get some climbing done (restrictions permitting of course!!).

Briefly - BMC negotiates with a lot of different conservation bodies and organsiations both at local and national levels on this issue. Much of the detailed negotiations is done by our really experienced and highly committed local volunteer access reps, with support and guidance from the BMC's access officers.
We campaign hard for the "least restrictive approach" to be used by conservation bodies when dealing with possible conflict between climbing and conservation issues. However enshrined in many conservation bodies thinking and philosophy is the "Sandford Principle" which is an established and well used (if a dated and highly cautious approach)which is often mis-used and mis-understood. In practice this is often used to restrict recreational activity unless it can be proven beyond any doubt that the activty will not have a detrimental affect on a particular habitat or species.
We believe that generally this is an out-dated and highly restrictive approach, and at policy and strategic level many conservation bodies agree.
However as BMC access officers and our volunteer reps are aware, the local situation can be very different, and varies hugely from organisation to organisation and between diferent parts of the UK. For instance there are very few formally agreed restrictions in Snowdonia for nesting Peregrines or Choughs, even though they are Schedule 1 protected birds, and are reasonably abundant in climbing areas.
The issue seems more complicated on outcrops/inland quarries and some sea cliffs, and often we are negotiating with a local bird group or conservation trust, who are understandably very protective of "their" birds. It does however make for a highly frustrating and complicated negotiation process, as ultimately the law is absolutely on the side of the birds, and any "disturbance" (even accidental) can be a criminal offence. The defintion of "distrubance" seems to vary from actually disturbing the nest to simply walking below the crag, if that affects the birds "normal activity". In some parts of the country climbers have been threatened with prosecution by wildlife police oficers for simply walking past a crag with nesting peregrine, while in other areas, on South Stack for instance (an RSPB reserve and an SSSI)a much more informed approach is taken (there are both choughs, peregrines and auk colonies on Main Cliff Gogarth, but current informed thinking is that in this location a restriction on climbing is not neccessary).
It is very true that each and every case involving peregrines is different - and the area and extent of a restriction to prevent disturbamce can vary as the season progresses. Each individual bird seems to have its own level of tolerance to human disturbance,and this varies depending on the age of the bird, its past experiences of disturbance, the stage of nesting, etc. but I'm sure that some of the restrictions are overly cautious and I can assure you that we are always questioning the extent and need for these restrictions.
The organistions with ultimate responsibility for enforcing and implementing the wildlife laws are Natural England and Countryside Council for Wales, but locally they frequently take their lead from local voluntary organsiations (RSPB, Wildlife Trusts, Raptor grpoups, etc.).
The duration of the restrictions also varies across the UK, as in some areas the birds nest sooner than in other areas, and in some areas might even attempt to lay a second clutch of eggs late in the season (especially if they were distrubed early on, or poor weather affected the nesting.

Conservation bodies are reluctant to lift restrictions early, as the reality is they often just don't know the nesting/fledging status of the birds on some of these sites, especially on the complicated sea cliffs, and insist on having a restricted period until they are absolutely sure that the birds have fully fledged.

Where there are dedicated professional conservation officers (e.g. Pembrokeshire) or really good qualified and licensed conservation volunteers (Clwyd Limestone) the restrcitions are often lifted early, simply because they have the rescources to monitor these particular sites.

There are many different reasons for each and every agreed restriction - and currently the law is firmly on the side of the birds, and with recent changes to European Habitats and Species regulations, even more so. The situation in the UK is considerably better than in most European countries. Many of the main climbing sites in the UK have some form of conservation designation, whereas on mainland Europe such designations have been used to completely restrict any recreational activities. We are very fortunate that is not the case in the UK, partially due to the informed approach taken by negotiated access, the superb history of compliance by climbers of the voluntary agreements and the general support and understanding from most climbers of the desire to protect these species.

And I thought I was only going to give a brief response, but it does show that it's a hugely complex issue!

Elfyn Jones
BMC Access & Conservation Officer (Wales)

In reply to colin struthers: Your original post about being 'conned' by 'birding interests' hardly sounded like a request for a reasoned debate on bird restrictions. Yes there have been plenty of calls for such a debate since, which you can see from both my posts I agree with. If I rushed into anything it's because it's something I'm passionate about and thankfully so are many others.

In reply to Elfyn - A+C Officer For Wales:

Thanks for that very detailed explanation Elfyn. So it does seem that we are at the mercy of amateur 'experts' who seem to be able to be as zealous and bloody-minded/cautious as they want.
Before the roof falls in, let me repeat that I am not against restrictions per se but I do get frustrated by their inconsisency and the seeming lack of solid science underpinning them. It does seem rather telling that the professionals are less restrictive than the (over)eager amateurs.

In reply to Wiley Coyote: Worth bearing in mind that the overwhelming amount of access work done on our behalf is undertaken by amateur experts.

In reply to colin struthers:

Elfyn has explained why bans vary but why ban at all?

Simply put, Peregrines are unpredictable. Yes some individual birds will tolerate a certain amount of human disturbance. But how can you be sure it's the same pair of birds nesting the next year, or the next? What happens when one of the pair for example dies and is replaced by a very nervous bird?

Human disturbance can cause them to give up a nesting site.

Once the eggs are laid from early April or May the eeggs are subject to:-
* Getting cold if the weather is chilly if the bird is frightened off the nest for longer than .....??? Depends on weather/temperature/wind chill/length of time birds off the nest etc., Any body care to predict the exact length of time?

* During the early stages of incubation adult birds are much more likely to desert. Some birds will desert if disturbed once!! Just because you are stuck to the cliff and can't see the nest doesn't mean that they can't see you. What about when they fly off the nest or the returning bird refuses to come back to the nest because it can see you?

*Whilst the adults are off the nest the eggs are in danger of predation by other avian species as are the chicks for several days.

*When the eggs have hatched the young chicks can - and do - die if the adults leave the nest for too long if the weather is bad -they don't have the insulating feather/down combination, nor is their plumage waterproof.

*Whilst you are climbing you risk leaving the young chicks too long without food and if the parents are off the nest they do not go off and hunt. They'll normally fly off after heckling you and circle out of our eye site. The longer this happens the less time they have available for hunting. And chick starvation does happen even if there is no disturbance.

* And if you climb/abseil too near much older offspring it is possible that they may fall off the nest. And the parents will not feed them if they have dropped away too far.

Yes peregrines nest in busy cities close to us but they make the choice as cities are occupied all the time. And in any case high up on a steeple is a long way from humans isn't it?

Yes of course they can become used to human presence but how can you guarantee you won't risk the success of a breeding pair, whilst you are 'habituating' them to humans? "Bans been lifted ladsl, now the birds have deserted"

Although many of the trusts, charities etc.,s with whom the BMC negotiate are 'amateur', this does not mean that there is any lack of knowledge or expertise (a bit like amateur climbers perhaps?) on perigrine behaviour.

There's plenty of rock for us - we only use it to play on. For the birds it's a matter of life - they must live & breed there!!

Yes, I am a birdwatcher too!

In reply to Darron:
>>


I may be wrong, but I feel that there are more peregrine bans in the Lakes every year. I love birds, too, and am an RSPB member, and I am delighted to see such birds in greater numbers. But the very breeding success of peregrines may mean that more and more crags will become out of bounds for the peak climbing season. I've seen peregrines on Raven Crag (Langdale) and cruising around Gimmer. I believe some nested in SE Gully there a year or two back. How would we feel, if Gimmer, Raven Crag, White Gill, Pavey Ark were all inaccessible to us? When does the balance between protecting the birds and protecting people's access to crags become in need of adjustment? And perhaps some bird expert (I'm not) can say whether there will be some kind of natural limit to the number of peregrines (eg owing to lack of pigeons)

In reply to Toreador:

Hear hear, well said.

In reply to stouffer:

Of course not. Believe it or not it is possible to use observation and statistics to scientifically evaluate what does or doesn't disturb the birds if someone would care to put the work in, and not just guess or use personal prejudice. It would appear that you have existing almost the whole span from frequently disturbed to no disturbance allowed. You therefore have a great base to start making rational analyses.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I wonder if an answer is to erect artificial nest sites away from established crags to encourage peregrines to nest away from climbers? A bit like the way people in Europe put up metal baskets on their roofs to encourage storks to nest in them.

In reply to colin struthers:

While most climbers would restrict themselves to climbing on certain areas of crags unaffected by nesting and fledgling birds in a responsible manner, there are a few who would not. The same groups who disregard landowners requests on approach routes to crags, or climbers who remove saplings and trees that they regard as interfering with certain routes etc. The actions of these few makes it easier to legislate against us all. And of course, in some cases, the irresponsible actions of a few over the years, have meant denied access to certain crags for us all.

Pete

In reply to Pete Ford: But the difference is that in this case anyone overstepping the mark could find themselves prosecuted - so where's the problem?

In reply to colin struthers:

Being plucked from your nest and stuffed into a bag to have something clipped to you must indeed be disturbing for the chicks. However, it only happens once and then the ringers move on.

Compare this to allowing climbers on a popular route which has a nest close to it/ on it, the disturbances would be many times per day.

The ringing is presumably so that conservtionists can keep track of an endangered population. Don't get me wrong, I do find it annoying when an area I'd like to climb in is off limits due to birds nesting, but I can appreciate the reasons for the restrictions.

In reply to Pete Ford:

Are you sure this is true? I have been climbing for 30+ years during which time I have never heard of climbers deliberately ignoring a restriction relating to peregrines (although undoubtedly there may have been accidental cases of disturbance on crags where no notice has been posted).

Can you give us any actual examples of this deliberate disturbance happening?