Dear me how some people do get in a strop whenever the words ‘seagull cull’ are mentioned. I take notice of the poetry and write up on the so-called benefits of having sea birds in close proximity, so close in fact that these so-called herring gulls do still prefer fish but only if it’s battered and presented by hand, of which one has to be careful of in case the said hand is also taken as food.
If only people would understand the meaning of the word ‘cull’ in this case, that of course is also directed to our learned councillors. It is not a case of shooting the birds out of the sky, nor is it a case of mass poisoning. All that is requested is that eggs be taken from nests, which is quite within the law of conservation, these birds do have some form of protection so do their young but as an egg they have no such protection (see the relevant documentation).
Therefore it is well within the power of a local authority to carry out a depletion of gulls eggs. And for my personal view this would be a definite advantage.
A point has to be reached where nature collides with what is accepted as the norm, if we do not take that as relevant then we would be knee deep in mosquitoes. Yes of course that is an extreme point, but it is also one to be made regarding nature and its propensity to suddenly expand a species seemingly at will.
This year has been intolerable with gulls nesting on rooftops, as we live in the ‘avenues’ it does seem unlikely that gulls find our chimney pots ideal, but that is the case. Quite a few residents have taken steps to deter the birds nesting, to the detriment of small birds coming into gardens, spikes, chimney cowls etc are all in use. Now all we request our council to do is meet the residents half way, we have done our bit, we expect our paid, elected representatives to go one further. A cull is requested.