查看完整版本: Removal of bird nests in my residential area 我家附近有人拆巢

Removal of bird nests in my residential area 我家附近有人拆巢

Today I saw some gardeners of my residential estate do some garden work but at the same time remove a big bird nest built from twigs.  It is probably a common magpie nest and I've once seen a koel calling near the nest.  But I'm not sure whether the nest has been used for this year.

I'd like to ask the following:
1) Was this already violated the law (Chapter 170)?
2) From (1), the law is violated even the nest is not used anymore? (I've taken the photos for the nest and it's empty.  I was not able to take the photos for actual moment that they're removing the nest but I did take their vehicle with their company name and some actions of removing tree branches.)
3) From (1), if not, the gardeners or the estate management office should be required to show their permits to remove the nests?
4) Anything advised to do?  If they've already violated the law, I'd like to report it with the photos as evidence. (AFCD, rite?)

Thanks again for your help.

[[i] Last edited by BWA at 17/08/2009 21:24 [/i]]

Hi MAnson

Birds and their nest are protected by law.  This is the section of the law which applies:

[table=98%][tr][td=1,1,13%][font=Times New Roman]Chapter:[/font]
[/td][td][font=Times New Roman]170 [url=http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/WebOpenDoc?OpenAgent&doc=170*0*English][img]http://www.legislation.gov.hk/09/images/pdf.gif[/img][/url][/font][/td][td=1,1,15%][font=Times New Roman]Title:[/font][/td][td][font=Times New Roman]WILD ANIMALS PROTECTION ORDINANCE[/font][/td][td=1,1,17%][font=Times New Roman]Gazette Number:[/font][/td][td]
[/td][/tr][tr][td=1,1,13%][font=Times New Roman]Section:[/font][/td][td][b][font=Times New Roman]5[/font][/b][/td][td=1,1,15%][font=Times New Roman]Heading:[/font][/td][td][b][font=Times New Roman]Protection of nests and eggs[/font][/b][/td][td=1,1,17%][font=Times New Roman]Version Date:[/font][/td][td][font=Times New Roman]30/06/1997[/font][/td][/tr][/table][color=Red][font=Times New Roman][size=5]No person shall, except in accordancewith a special permit, take, remove, injure, destroy or wilfullydisturb a nest or egg of any protected wild animal. [/size][/font][/color]

From this clause it does not matter whether the nest is occupied or not.
Could I suggest  you use this incident as an opportunity to educate the estate management company, by writing to them and AFCD together, providing all th details and photos you have, and copying HKBWS.

When you write to AFCD ask them to explain

A) Whether this action is illegal
B) What action they plan to take
C) Request them to inform you of the outcome

This is a good way for HKBWS members to support and co-operate with AFCD in reporting incidents of this type and in educating the contractor and estate management company.

Cheers
Mike K

Good question.  This serious question need some expert answer.  I better leave it to the expert before I say what I believe.

HF Cheung

If the nest is not used at the moment, e.g. no eggs or chick inside, it is supposed to be not illegal to remove it. Common Magpie breed in winter and Koel is brood-parasitic. So (answer Q 1) I think they are not using the nest at this moment and therefore the gardener is not breaching the law.

Q2: There is a grey area on this situation. The Ordinance list that all wild bird's nest are protected, but do not specific whether active or inactive. So you may argue that inactive nest is also a nest. However, my PERSONAL INTERPRETATION is that the spirit of the ordinance is aim on protecting wild birds' life. So, I think it's acceptable if only active nest is protected. In fact, some birds build nest in village house's garden, conditioner...etc. It would cause many inconvenience if inactive nests are also protected.
However, I said grey area is because some bird's nest only inactive seasonally. That means the birds would use the same nest again in subsequent breeding season. In such case, the protection status of active/inactive nest is very vague....

Q3: There is no such permit for removing bird nest. Or it would be issued only in some very very rare case.

Q4: Yes, if it were. That mean if you can prove or even suspect there are eggs or chicks inside.

Please note that my interpretation may not be 100% correct. For official reply, please dial hotline 1823 for enquiry.

Thanks very much Mike, Fai Gor and Gary.  I'm going to start my draft to report this.  No matter what the management office has done is legal or not, we still can get the idea and view from AFCD.  It should be beneficial to us and the birds anyway.  Hope I am able to write it well in English and cc to HKBWS. 35517c00a009445

[size=4]Manson,

如果你已確認有鳥在坐巢，甚至有鳥蛋或幼鳥在巢內的話，我會建議你先打電話俾1823或者AFCD, 後補信件, 因為email 有機會唔係第一時間處理的!

Sze.[/size]

[[i] Last edited by Sze at 17/08/2009 23:06 [/i]]

I agree with Gary's interpretation. Having to protect all abandoned nests is probably asking too much from the government (not too practical).

HF Cheung

My letter has been sent to AFCD through email.  I cced to HKBWS as well.  Looking forward to hearing their reply. 3551em7445

I received a verbal reply from AFCD Mr Yam for the above issue on 27Aug09 (Thu).  Then I've requested a reply in black-and-white and received it today.  A copy was cc to HKBWS for recording purpose and I post it here for your reference too.

I've got the following:
1) My residential estate management company (DBSML) DOES NOT KNOW the related legislation though they have the common sense that the bird nest should be at least inactive before it should be removed.
2) AFCD officers have advised DBSML to consult them whenever similar cases happen.
3) I think I have educated or conveyed a message to DBSML to be aware of the natural wild life in the residential area. 35518f337f1c445

[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3519/3909509444_0a9b7ab57b.jpg[/img]

Cheers

[size=3]Manson,

多謝你的分享!
遇到有拆巢的事找AFCD幫助是治標的方法，
長遠來說，要將相關的知識告訴更多普羅大眾，
才可以令更多野生雀鳥得到幸福！[/size]