hen harrier

jap gt

i read in my local paper today that npws are paying some farmers in my area 13 thousand adding up to 64 thousand to let a hen harrier fly on their land, is this common, i think they are afraid that the bird will be shot as some farmers had plans for wind turbines turned down due to the location of the hen harrier

here is a link but you must pay to read it all

http://www.corkman.ie/premium/news/farmers-paid-euro-64000-to-help-preserve-harrier-2331337.html

LostCovey

jap gt wrote: »

i read in my local paper today that npws are paying some farmers in my area over 60 thousand to let a hen harrier fly on their land, is this common, i think they are afraid that the bird will be shot as some farmers had plans for wind turbines turned down due to the location of the hen harrier

here is a link but you must pay to read it all

http://www.corkman.ie/premium/news/farmers-paid-euro-64000-to-help-preserve-harrier-2331337.html

Sounds a bit too good to be true jap gt.

I doubt if a country that can't afford decent A&E units in hospitals can afford to pay a farmer twice the industrial wage to persuade him or her not to break the law. Even to publish a story suggesting such a thing brings Irish farmers into disrepute. I think most farmers would want nothing to do with killing protected species, and would not need a payment to persuade them.

LostCovey

Feargal as Luimneach

jap gt wrote: »

i read in my local paper today that npws are paying some farmers in my area over 60 thousand to let a hen harrier fly on their land, is this common, i think they are afraid that the bird will be shot as some farmers had plans for wind turbines turned down due to the location of the hen harrier

here is a link but you must pay to read it all

http://www.corkman.ie/premium/news/farmers-paid-euro-64000-to-help-preserve-harrier-2331337.html

You're misleading with that post. The maximum grant is 13,000. Hen Harrier are under threat in this country? Why shouldn't they be protected?

jap gt

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

You're misleading with that post. The maximum grant is 13,000. Hen Harrier are under threat in this country? Why shouldn't they be protected?

whats misleading about it, its the same as the heading in the paper and we all seem able to keep up :rolleyes:, 64 thousand is what they pay, how many people get part of that doesnt matter, i dont see why farmers are being paid not to break the law, if its illegal to shoot them

Feargal as Luimneach

jap gt wrote: »

whats misleading about it, its the same as the heading in the paper and we all seem able to keep up :rolleyes:, 64 thousand is what they pay, how many people get part of that doesnt matter, i dont see why farmers are being paid not to break the law, if its illegal to shoot them

"npws are paying some farmers in my area over 60 thousand to let a hen harrier fly on their land"
A farmer gets 60,000 thats what you said. The maximum grant is 13,000. That's why it's misleading.

jap gt

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

"npws are paying some farmers in my area over 60 thousand to let a hen harrier fly on their land"
A farmer gets 60,000 thats what you said. The maximum grant is 13,000. That's why it's misleading.

FARMERS the s implies more than one, stop picking holes in it, thats what the heading in the paper said, i didnt write it, im just passing it on to see if its common


i have edited my original post <snip>, the wording of my post has nothing to do with the fact that no one should be recieving grants to not shoot a protected bird, when its illegal to do so, the law is there for a reason

Birdnuts

This Hen Harrier issue is a Red Herring when it comes to the citing of wind farms in many cases. Locals living near these things are usually the most vociferious objectors as evidenced by the controversies over the Derrybrien and Mount Callan projects.

PS: There is growing concerns as to just how green these type of wind power projects are. Many involve the destruction of large areas of blanket bogs to install the neccesary infrostructure that in turn leads to the release of large amount of CO2 that the bog naturally stores. That and its affect on local wildlife/fisheries etc. suggests in many cases these types of projects are more about green wash then green power:rolleyes:

Half-cocked

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

I went to odessa national park (spain)last year. Why? To see bearded vulture which is rare.

Saw 2 bearded vultures in the Pyrennees many years ago, dropping bones onto the rocks to break them open. I'm not a twitcher, but I would pay to see them again. Likewise many would come to Ireland just to see our raptors. We are heavily dependant on the tourist dollar in this country and anything positive that encourages more tourists to come here is to be welcomed.

My $0.02;)

Connacht

Lads, lads,
There are a few issues being 'discussed' here.
1. Culling in Ireland - Killing raptors is insane and I doubt if anybody here is on for that. If they are, they should be honest enough to write it down for all to see. Just for context, the Buzzard has barely established itself here in the West. His population even in the East is hardly substantial.
But culling deer can sometimes be useful and sensible.
2. Bird and general wildlife tourism - To deny its existence would be ridiculous. It's all over the world. Here in IRL, we do well for seabirds and cetaceans particularly. I will go to Scotland next year, solely because of the WT Eagles. I know tourism people in IRL who get plenty of wildlife-seeking tourists.
3. Wind turbines - It would be foolish to say they're all good. Yes, it doesn't burn fossil feuls, but there is the serious issue of bog removal, but also of the the huge amount of concrete that has to be produced to hold the things in place. Not to mention the moise. [On that last point, please don't anybody deny they make noise - they do]
4. Hunting - While I think it's a disgusting activity, nevertheless, there are times when it can serve a purpose. Think mink.
So try not to so black and white about everything. There are two sides to some issues.

Mothman

jap gt, I have a number of queries. I don't have access to the article and I'm not intending to pay for it, and I would like to better understand the following.

jap gt wrote: »

i think they are afraid that the bird will be shot as some farmers had plans for wind turbines turned down due to the location of the hen harrier

Is this paraphrasing the article or your opinion? If the latter, what reasoning do you have that this is the motive of the NPWS

jap gt wrote: »

i dont see why farmers are being paid not to break the law, if its illegal to shoot them

Does the article say this? or is it your interpretation?

jap gt wrote: »

the wording of my post has nothing to do with the fact that no one should be recieving grants to not shoot a protected bird, when its illegal to do so, the law is there for a reason

Again does the article say this?

Feargal as Luimneach

Wind turbines are unfortunately are major killer of large raptors:(

Birdnuts

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

Wind turbines are unfortunately are major killer of large raptors:(

I know - its listed as one of the major threats to the Griffon Vulture in Italy and Spain. I intend to post a shocking video from Spain on this subject:(

jap gt

Mothman wrote: »

jap gt, I have a number of queries. I don't have access to the article and I'm not intending to pay for it, and I would like to better understand the following.

Is this paraphrasing the article or your opinion? If the latter, what reasoning do you have that this is the motive of the NPWS


Does the article say this? or is it your interpretation?

Again does the article say this?

il see if i can scan it tomorrow, is it alright to do so?

but i have a quote to hand.

'dept of enviroment has paid some farmers 13,000 per year not to shoot or endanger the birds'

in another local paper today its said the payements are made because the farmer has agreed to turn his/her land in 'special protection areas' and that its not just for not shooting the birds..

in light of reading the original story it seems very one sided, i for one would love to see the birds around, i just thought payement to farmers was a step too far, but going by the second story its deserved as they must maintain the lands to suit the birds

Feargal as Luimneach

jap gt wrote: »

il see if i can scan it tomorrow, is it alright to do so?

but i have a quote to hand.

'dept of enviroment has paid some farmers 13,000 per year not to shoot or endanger the birds'

in another local paper today its said the payements are made because the farmer has agreed to turn his/her land in 'special protection areas' and that its not just for not shooting the birds..

in light of reading the original story it seems very one sided, i for one would love to see the birds around, i just thought payement to farmers was a step too far, but going by the second story its deserved as they must maintain the lands to suit the birds

It's probably like the grant given for corncrake protection: The Corncrake Grant Scheme.

jap gt

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

It's probably like the grant given for corncrake protection: The Corncrake Grant Scheme.

i think its something along those lines, i saw one of the birds last year working back in that area they are a lovely bird, it would be nice to see more of them around the area, its mostly bog and forest and poor farming ground so i assume the ground suits them

Feargal as Luimneach

jap gt wrote: »

il see if i can scan it tomorrow, is it alright to do so?

but i have a quote to hand.

'dept of enviroment has paid some farmers 13,000 per year not to shoot or endanger the birds'

in another local paper today its said the payements are made because the farmer has agreed to turn his/her land in 'special protection areas' and that its not just for not shooting the birds..

in light of reading the original story it seems very one sided, i for one would love to see the birds around, i just thought payement to farmers was a step too far, but going by the second story its deserved as they must maintain the lands to suit the birds

Unfortunately any money spent on wildlife in this country is considered a waste of money.:mad:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gormley-spends-836460000-counting-protestant-bats-2228657.html

The spin put on the Hen Harrier payments is just another example of anti-wildlife propaganda ie farmers being paid not to shoot Harriers:mad: It also give the impression that the farmers are out to shoot the Hen Harriers.

jap gt

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

Unfortunately any money spent on wildlife in this country is considered a waste of money.:mad:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gormley-spends-836460000-counting-protestant-bats-2228657.html

The spin put on the Hen Harrier payments is just another example of anti-wildlife propaganda ie farmers being paid not to shoot Harriers:mad:

im the first to admit i know very little about the released birds, i just read the piece in the paper and quetioned if it was a common act, but on reading the new article i guess its well earned money

Birdnuts

jap gt wrote: »

il see if i can scan it tomorrow, is it alright to do so?

but i have a quote to hand.

'dept of enviroment has paid some farmers 13,000 per year not to shoot or endanger the birds'

in another local paper today its said the payements are made because the farmer has agreed to turn his/her land in 'special protection areas' and that its not just for not shooting the birds..

in light of reading the original story it seems very one sided, i for one would love to see the birds around, i just thought payement to farmers was a step too far, but going by the second story its deserved as they must maintain the lands to suit the birds

I think the problem here is the lack of knowledge of the subject by the journalist reporting the storey - unfortunatly this is rather a common problem across the media in this country, especcially when it concerns anything even vaguely to do with environmental/scientific matters:(

Birdnuts

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

Unfortunately any money spent on wildlife in this country is considered a waste of money.:mad:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gormley-spends-836460000-counting-protestant-bats-2228657.html

What do you expect from one of O'Reilly's rag-sheets - That article does highlight one truism though, that FG would be equally if not more ignorant than FF as to the value of our Natural Heritage:(

Feargal as Luimneach

Birdnuts wrote: »

I think the problem here is the lack of knowledge of the subject by the journalist reporting the storey - unfortunatly this is rather a common problem across the media in this country, especcially when it concerns anything even vaguely to do with environmental/scientific matters:(

Here's more propaganda in the media, this time about endangered Natterjack toad.:mad::mad::mad:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-228446609.html
I think some politician (Fine Gael I think) was spouting rubbish about wasting money on these toads. The retard knew nothing about them and the fact there severly endangered in this country.:mad::mad::mad:

Mothman

jap gt wrote: »

il see if i can scan it tomorrow, is it alright to do so?

Possibly not

jap gt wrote: »

in light of reading the original story it seems very one sided, i for one would love to see the birds around, i just thought payement to farmers was a step too far, but going by the second story its deserved as they must maintain the lands to suit the birds

This to me sounds more balanced.

There may be something about it on the NPWS site but a quick look did not find it.
There are measures such as "Management Agreements"

This may be compensation payments towards changing land use management for the benefit of certain habitats.

The way I view payments to farmers is that if they are available then they would be fools not to take them. If one has an issue with the payments I don't see it as the farmer's fault, but tackle the source of payment.

Feargal as Luimneach

jwshooter wrote: »

its quite obvious that gormless is been lead around like a prized pig by some one in the npws .

Hen Harriers are in trouble in this country, they need to be helped. It is similar to the assistance given to the corncrake, chough, little tern, roseate tern and Greenland white fronted goose. Or should we let these species become extinct, like the irish corn bunting in the 1990's
Do you think saving the corncrake is a waste of money?

Feargal as Luimneach

Birdnuts wrote: »

The GP has certainly failed badly to meet most of the expectations of its former supporters - however Gormley has speeded up the designation of SAC's, NHA's, IBA's etc that now protect the remaining habitat of declining Moorland birds like Red Grouse and breeding waders etc. Indeed that was the main reason that the Glenamoy and Ballycroy bog complexes were designated SAC's in Mayo so as to comply with the EU Birds Directive which previous Environment Ministers basically ignored - a situation which allowed vast areas of heathland and bogland to be destroyed over the last 30 years or so!!:(

I think Ballycroy bog is also a national park now:)

IceMaiden

Hen harriers are declining in most parts because of loss of habitat be that in Ireland or Europe .After much work in some areas an improvement has been monitored & hopefully with more work in Ireland similar results will one day be available.
When or if ever numbers rise enough will come the problems encountered elsewhere of the feeding habits & predation of other either vulnerable species or profitable species of local economies, at this stage the numbers are so low they are having less effect or detrimental impact than other birds or mammals.

Reports on landowners & windfarm issues to me only usually shows how short sighted proposers can be. I am no big believer in the wind farm projects on land, however any given wind farm may well pay rewards for a individual or several landowners ,this does only a limited amount for most rural local economies, however the scope is as wide if not more so for areas that have native birds such as harriers & eagles .

Similarly for rural areas with a sustainable supply of game or game birds provided an amount of days or opportunities are available to paying guns/guests from a wider area.
Overall it is clearly possible for a number of birds of prey species to live & thrive in areas of sporting game management. This can put cash into many areas of rural economies & provided locals are willing or enterprising enough. Where as the wind farms unfortunately provide far less entrepreneurial slices of the pie .

The aim should be for all the groups to work towards the same common goals of preserving suitable habitats & natural food [whenever possible] combined with management of vermin & game through conservation bodies & field sports organisations .In Britain the costs are EU funded & supplemented by others like the RSPB & the Game Conservancy Trust.etc. Ireland has huge potential to reap rewards from its rural environments without blotting the landscape unnecessarily. other countries have readily available facts ,figures ,projects & results of success. grouse shooting contributes up to £240million a year to the Scottish economy but obviously this is possible because most of the guns are high paying visitors who arrive for the occasion, spending money locally during the short time they stay. Well managed moors provide ample grouse, harriers & eagles ,The tourism comes in various forms but the locals can benefit .

Jim Martin

IceMaiden wrote: »

Hen harriers are declining in most parts because of loss of habitat be that in Ireland or Europe .After much work in some areas an improvement has been monitored & hopefully with more work in Ireland similar results will one day be available.
When or if ever numbers rise enough will come the problems encountered elsewhere of the feeding habits & predation of other either vulnerable species or profitable species of local economies, at this stage the numbers are so low they are having less effect or detrimental impact than other birds or mammals.

Reports on landowners & windfarm issues to me only usually shows how short sighted proposers can be. I am no big believer in the wind farm projects on land, however any given wind farm may well pay rewards for a individual or several landowners ,this does only a limited amount for most rural local economies, however the scope is as wide if not more so for areas that have native birds such as harriers & eagles .

Similarly for rural areas with a sustainable supply of game or game birds provided an amount of days or opportunities are available to paying guns/guests from a wider area.
Overall it is clearly possible for a number of birds of prey species to live & thrive in areas of sporting game management. This can put cash into many areas of rural economies & provided locals are willing or enterprising enough. Where as the wind farms unfortunately provide far less entrepreneurial slices of the pie .

The aim should be for all the groups to work towards the same common goals of preserving suitable habitats & natural food [whenever possible] combined with management of vermin & game through conservation bodies & field sports organisations .In Britain the costs are EU funded & supplemented by others like the RSPB & the Game Conservancy Trust.etc. Ireland has huge potential to reap rewards from its rural environments without blotting the landscape unnecessarily. other countries have readily available facts ,figures ,projects & results of success. grouse shooting contributes up to £240million a year to the Scottish economy but obviously this is possible because most of the guns are high paying visitors who arrive for the occasion, spending money locally during the short time they stay. Well managed moors provide ample grouse, harriers & eagles ,The tourism comes in various forms but the locals can benefit .

This is definitely the case in W. Clare! The Mt. Callan application was sold as being a local community development but in the event was - only to certain individuals on whose land where the developers wanted to put their turbines. Other people directly affected by the development stood to lose a lot - in the form of landscape desecration, light & shadow flicker, noise, possible total loss of value of their property (one person has already lost a sale due to "planning blight", possible interference to water wells. Not to mention the disturbance to local biodiversity (hen harriers, red grouse, bats, botany etc.). Some of the this disturbance will be created during construction work, some longer term.

Jim Martin

Oh, and I forgot to mention - the local community has been split right down the middle with those "for" and those "against", sometimes within the same family. I wouldn't wish this kind of nightmare on anyone! The amount of stress created is unbelievable. Will the developers compensate for this? I think not!

Mothman

I'm jumping in here as moderator because I feel this thread has potential to go on a tangent only about wind farms.
Please keep any discussion on wind farms relevant to Hen Harriers

I've no issue with the recent posts, but It can be an emotive issue hence my note

Jim Martin

Mothman wrote: »

I'm jumping in here as moderator because I feel this thread has potential to go on a tangent only about wind farms.
Please keep any discussion relevant to Hen Harriers

I've no issue with the recent posts, but It can be an emotive issue hence my note

This is VERY relevant to Hen Harriers but I'm afraid I have to refer to wind farms again. In a recent submission to the Mt. Callan planning application to Clare Co. Co. (Planning File Ref. No. 109), the DEH&LG stated that Hen Harriers require a minimum of 250m distance from turbines when foraging. I feel that this a very important point which has repercussions for any wind farm applications in areas where Hen Harriers nest & forage.!

Sincerely hope this will not need moderating. Thanks.

Birdnuts

Jim Martin wrote: »

This is VERY relevant to Hen Harriers but I'm afraid I have to refer to wind farms again. In a recent submission to the Mt. Callan planning application to Clare Co. Co. (Planning File Ref. No. 109), the DEH&LG stated that Hen Harriers require a minimum of 250m distance from turbines when foraging. I feel that this a very important point which has repercussions for any wind farm applications in areas where Hen Harriers nest & forage.!

Sincerely hope this will not need moderating. Thanks.

Thanx Jim - i'm following the Mt Callan angle very closely on this one and hope the appeals scale back this rather dubious(in terms of its supposed greeness) project:)

Jim Martin

Jim Martin wrote: »

This is VERY relevant to Hen Harriers but I'm afraid I have to refer to wind farms again. In a recent submission to the Mt. Callan planning application to Clare Co. Co. (Planning File Ref. No. 109), the DEH&LG stated that Hen Harriers require a minimum of 250m distance from turbines when foraging. I feel that this a very important point which has repercussions for any wind farm applications in areas where Hen Harriers nest & forage.!

Sincerely hope this will not need moderating. Thanks.

I'm sorry, what I should actually have said was:

"This is VERY relevant to Hen Harriers but I'm afraid I have to refer to wind farms again. In a recent submission to the Mt. Callan planning application to Clare Co. Co. (Planning File Ref. No. 109), the DEH&LG stated that (my emboldening) 'it is to be noted that recent research indicates that the foraging activity of hen harriers can be adversely affected at a distance of as much as 250m from individual wind turbines'. I feel that this is a very important point which has repercussions for any wind farm applications in areas where Hen Harriers nest & forage."

Sorry if my wording may have caused any confusion among readers!

Connacht

I saw my first male Hen Harrier of this winter roosting season on Sunday here in Mayo. What a magnificent and beautiful bird.