No longterm damage to bird populations from wind farms

[Rheghead]

"There is no impact from the turning of the blades," those are the words from Martin Harper, the RSPB's UK conservation director. However there is some reductions of certain species during the construction stage.

Martin Harper's comments were made in the wake of the release of a major study of the effects of wind farms on bird populations which was carried out by RSPB, SNH and the British Trust for Ornithology. The effects on bird populations run contrary to the mantra which is pushed forward by those who oppose wind farm development.

Well it comes as no surprise to me as I'm prepared to take a balanced view on wind farms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/12/windfarms-damage-bird-populations

[gleeber]

It's ironic that the 2 birds hovering dangerously close to the blades in the link appear to be red Kites one of the rarest birds in Britain. Mind you by the look of the sky the blades wont be moving. Just as well. :eek:

[Green_not_greed]

Interesting that the study focussed solely on ground nesting species and not those (eg raptors) who soar around looking for things to hunt. So this is by no way a definitive study on "birds". Its for ten ground-nesting species only.

Here's a slightly different take on how they affect raptors......

http://www.epaw.org/multimedia.php?lang=en&article=b1

The Baillie windfarm will have a similar effect on Whooper Swans and geese.

[Rheghead]

Interesting that the study focussed solely on ground nesting species and not those (eg raptors) who soar around looking for things to hunt. So this is by no way a definitive study on "birds". Its for ten ground-nesting species only.

Here's a slightly different take on how they affect raptors......

http://www.epaw.org/multimedia.php?lang=en&article=b1

The Baillie windfarm will have a similar effect on Whooper Swans and geese.

Fortunately, there can be no meaningful comparison with what is happening at Altamont Pass and that what is happening in the UK. Firstly we don't have the same species and population density as California. Secondly, the design of the turbines is totally different, they have the lattice tower designs which provide roosting places for raptors who use the struts for vantage perches to spot prey. In other words they attract raptors thus causing problems specific to this design.

Modern turbines in the UK have cylindrical towers that offer no perching places for birds of prey so are of very limited concern. And that is probably why the study did not cover any raptors.

[badger]

The Guardian is notoriously pro-wind energy. Try reading the Telegraph and you'll get a different picture, especially in the Comments. The RSPB is sadly not impartial which is why so many members resigned when they started supporting windfarms. SNH is a Govt. body. A school turbine was taken down because the Head was tired of removing dead birds under it. Not an unusual situation.

[Rheghead]

The Guardian is notoriously pro-wind energy. Try reading the Telegraph and you'll get a different picture, especially in the Comments. The RSPB is sadly not impartial which is why so many members resigned when they started supporting windfarms. SNH is a Govt. body. A school turbine was taken down because the Head was tired of removing dead birds under it. Not an unusual situation.

Sadly, The Telegraph gets regularly hauled over the coals (no pun) in relation to green energy by Fullfact, a non-partisan body that strives to promote accuracy in public debate. Christopher Booker seems to be the head liar in Chief at that particular newspaper. He is the one who claimed asbestos had the same toxic effects as talcum powder!! I jest not.

By the way Badger, you treat the RSPB, the SNH with contempt on this occasion but you are keen to hail their graces and judgement when they object against wind turbines. Do you ever think in those cases that they may be wrong as they are wrong in this report?

[David Banks]

"There is no impact from the turning of the blades,"


Really?
Studies in Canada have shown that the changes in air pressure around operating windmills kills bats.

[Rheghead]

Really?
Studies in Canada have shown that the changes in air pressure around operating windmills kills bats.

Bats were not part of the report. However, reports that wind turbines kill bats have to be put into the context of other human activities that kill millions of bats rather than the odd one by turbines.

[Green_not_greed]

Bats were not part of the report.

And neither were most species of bird. Have you read the report ? Only ten species were covered. Its more than a far stretch to claim "no long term damage to bird populations". In fact its completely misleading.

13159

[Rheghead]

And neither were most species of bird. Have you read the report ? Only ten species were covered. Its more than a far stretch to claim "no long term damage to bird populations". In fact its completely misleading.

13159

I think it would be fair to extrapolate that the conclusions would be the same if time and money were spent on studying more species of birds.

I find it incredulous that the RSPB would pin their name against such a thorough report as this if it was truly misleading the public, in fact they would be liable to prosecution. And you should be ashamed of yourself of trying to besmirch their reputation.

[Green_not_greed]

The study is called “Greater impacts of wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis” and compares the effect of wind turbine construction then operation upon ten species of bird across 16 UK windfarms.

The main summary states:

1. There has been a rapid increase in the development of renewable energy because of the need to combat climate change. One of the most widely used technologies has been onshore wind farms. These have the potential to affect birds through disturbance or collision, but the extent to which such developments cause general population declines, and therefore are of wider conservation concern, remains largely untested.
2. Monitoring data from wind farms located on unenclosed upland habitats in the UK were collated to test whether breeding densities of upland birds were reduced as a result of wind farm construction or during wind farm operation.
3. Data were available for ten species although none were raptors. Red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus, snipe Gallinago gallinago and curlew Numenius arquata densities all declined on wind farms during construction. Red grouse densities recovered after construction, but snipe and curlew densities did not. Post-construction curlew densities on wind farms were also significantly lower than reference sites. Conversely, densities of skylark Alauda arvensis and stonechat Saxicola torquata increased on wind farms during construction.
4. There was little evidence for consistent post-construction population declines in any species, suggesting for the first time that wind farm construction can have greater impacts upon birds than wind farm operation.
5. The impacts of wind farms were largely unaffected by technical specifications (turbine height, number or total generating power) and therefore are widely applicable.
6. Synthesis and applications. This study confirms that regulatory authorities and developers should particularly consider the likely impacts of wind farms on large waders. Greater weight should be given to the effects of construction on wildlife in impact assessments than at present. Mitigation measures during construction, including restricting construction activity to non-breeding periods, should be considered and tested as a means to reduce these negative effects.


The bold highlight is (1) above is mine. The above is the main points presented by RSPB, which I'm sure you'll agree is a far cry from how the press - and yourself - have picked this up.

[Rheghead]

In other words there is no evidence to support the notion that wind farms cause decline in bird populations in the study group or outwith the study group other than during the construction phase but populations recover. To suggest otherwise is pure speculation and scaremongering.

[rupert]

Well, I can say for a fact that wind turbines do kill birds as I have witnessed it. Whilst, standing right infront of turbine no 2 at the Causeymire, directly under the rotating blades a small bird, I think a meadow pippet was killed by a rotating blade and dropped stone dead to the ground a few feet infront of me. That is a fact and no matter what you say Rheghead this bird was killed by a wind turbine.

I spoke to a person at the RSPB about it and he was very uncaring. Basically saying that yes some do get killed but they have to be sacrificed for the bigger goal of combatting climate change (my words). I was not impressed.

[Rheghead]

Well, I can say for a fact that wind turbines do kill birds as I have witnessed it. Whilst, standing right infront of turbine no 2 at the Causeymire, directly under the rotating blades a small bird, I think a meadow pippet was killed by a rotating blade and dropped stone dead to the ground a few feet infront of me. That is a fact and no matter what you say Rheghead this bird was killed by a wind turbine.

I spoke to a person at the RSPB about it and he was very uncaring. Basically saying that yes some do get killed but they have to be sacrificed for the bigger goal of combatting climate change (my words). I was not impressed.

Well I agree with the RSPB officer, Climate Change is the biggest threat to humanity and wildlife since the last ice age. Experts tell us that a third of all species on the planet are threatened with extinction due to Global Warming. No small beer.

It is entirely possible that you saw one of the ~100 birds killed by the Causeymire turbines per year even though I accept you aren't exactly an unbiased witness. It is estimated that 50,000,000 birds get killed by cars on British roads per year and they do nothing to combat climate change, nobody seems to be objecting to them.

[newweecroft]

On the stretch of road adjacent to the turbines on the causy, one regularly see's a multitude of dead birds and mammals killed by vehicular traffic. I would suspect it is highly likely that any given square meterage of rural public highway has a greater number of wildlife fatalities per annum that the corresponding area swept by a turbines blades.Thus the arguament should be mute, humans cause devastating effects on wildlife through inadvertant killing regardless of our pursuit at the time.

[Green_not_greed]

Rheghead - given that in your own words "I'm prepared to take a balanced view on windfarms" I assume that you would be in favour of legislation to make it compulsory for all wind farm operators to employ RSPB/SSPB to provide independent assessment of how many birds are killed on their sites? Without such independent assessment, or legislation for it, operators will continue to cover up the true facts. At present, what happens on the wind farm, stays on the wind farm........

[Anfield]

Was there not a thread on here last year about buzzards being killed by rotor blades at Forss?

[Rheghead]

Rheghead - given that in your own words "I'm prepared to take a balanced view on windfarms" I assume that you would be in favour of legislation to make it compulsory for all wind farm operators to employ RSPB/SSPB to provide independent assessment of how many birds are killed on their sites? Without such independent assessment, or legislation for it, operators will continue to cover up the true facts. At present, what happens on the wind farm, stays on the wind farm........

I'd be in favor of such an arrangement, sure, more info would be great. But you really are speculating that the wind farm operators are covering up the facts. And as these studies are continually going on as this report testifies, then I still see no problem with a wind farm provided that it is sited in the right location as per the environmental statement.

The fact is that there is no ideal location for a wind farm. You can't make them invisible, you can't make them totally benign to birds and bats, you can't make them totally silent. But the bottom line is, as the RSPB rightfully says, is that we need to reduce the carbon footprint of the UK if there is any hope of Climate Change being reversed and any other nation following our lead. The second fact is that the deleterious effects of wind farms are not half as bad as those opposing them claim to be. They'll say anything or sell their own grandmother if there was even half a chance of not seeing a wind turbine again.

[newweecroft]

Rheghead - given that in your own words "I'm prepared to take a balanced view on windfarms" I assume that you would be in favour of legislation to make it compulsory for all wind farm operators to employ RSPB/SSPB to provide independent assessment of how many birds are killed on their sites? Without such independent assessment, or legislation for it, operators will continue to cover up the true facts. At present, what happens on the wind farm, stays on the wind farm........Perhaps the Highways Agency should too?

[Green_not_greed]

Perhaps the Highways Agency should too?

Just how much of the roads do they own? Isnt it the local authorities ?

[Bill Fernie]

A small number of birds may be killed by wind turbines but in comparison to other forms of killing birds it is very small. I googled this site in USA that gives some stagggering possible numbers for different ways birds are killed due to mankind -
http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm

V (http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm)ehicles probably kill a huge amount more birds in Caithness than turbines. Everyone who drives regularly has killed many birds even if they don't always know it as small birds hardly make noise unless they hit the wind screen. Anyone who has driven on the roads in the early hours of the morning has seen the carnage at night being mopped up by foxes, crows, gulls and more. By daylight most of the dead birds and animals have all been eaten hiding the evidence. It is possible this also happens to birds killed by wind turbines. Any place where free food is on offer soon becomes known to predators.

[Wizzbang]

In Germany I see they paint stripes on their blades to make them more visible to birds.

[Green_not_greed]

"What happens on the wind farm, stays on the wind farm"

WINDFARMS - BIRD MORTALITY COVER UP IN THE UK

Worth a read http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/?page_id=906


(http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/?page_id=906)

[Rheghead]

"What happens on the wind farm, stays on the wind farm"

WINDFARMS - BIRD MORTALITY COVER UP IN THE UK

Worth a read http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/?page_id=906


(http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/?page_id=906)

Is this a website which is written by the same Marc Duchchamp who got banned from the biggest birding forums because of trolling his lies? I know this because I was there when he got banned.

EDIT So MD is the chief of World Council for Nature so I've just Googled 'World Council for Nature' thinking that with a grandiose name like that it would have some international notoriety but seemingly no reference on wiki or elsewhere. I'm forced to suggest that Marc Duchamp is its only member.

[Green_not_greed]

Is this a website which is written by the same Marc Duchchamp who got banned from the biggest birding forums because of trolling his lies? I know this because I was there when he got banned.

EDIT So MD is the chief of World Council for Nature so I've just Googled 'World Council for Nature' thinking that with a grandiose name like that it would have some international notoriety but seemingly no reference on wiki or elsewhere. I'm forced to suggest that Marc Duchamp is its only member.

I googled it too and found this text (below). Looks like they are quite a new organisation but certainly looks like they have more than one member........there are at least two of them......

Mission

The World Council for Nature (WCFN) was founded September 20th, 2011.
Its mission is to defend Nature against aggressions from man. The world has entered a phase of accelerated destruction, where traditional ecologists are no longer holding natural habitats and biodiversity as their first concerns. We denounce this perversion, and will defend Nature as our number one priority.

Our mission in more detail —> http://wcfn.org/2011/09/20/hello-world/ (http://wcfn.org/2011/09/20/hello-world/)

Membership

List of members:
- Save the Eagles International (STEI), global
- Centro de Investigaciones y Promoción de Iniciativas para Conocer y Proteger la Naturaleza (CIPI-CPN) -”Iberica 2000“, global
- Federación de Asociaciones de Félix Rodríguez de la Fuente, Spain
- Toronto Wind Action, Canada
- NA-PAW – federation of 78 organizations from North America
- Great Lakes Wind Truth, Canada
- Nieuwerust Noise & Bird Watch, South Africa
- Lake Superior Action Research Conservation, Canada
- Patrimonio Natural y Cultural de Extremadura, Spain
- Ecocultura Argentina, Argentina
- Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco, Puerto Rico
- Action for Protection of Wild Animals (APOWA), India
- Asociacion Plataforma El Quichote contra los molinos, Spain
- Πρωτοβουλία Πολιτών για τη Διάσωση του Πράμνειου Όρους
Citizens’ Initiative for Saving Mount Pramnos – Save Pramnos, Ikaria, Greece
- Friends of Mojave, United States
- 中國香港地貌岩石保育協會
Association for Geoconservation, Hong Kong, China
- Plataforma de Afectados de la Línea de Alta Tensión del Robledo, Extremadura, Spain


Member of honor:
- Epifanio Rodriguez, volunteer who designed our logo. WCFN is endebted to you, Epifanio.
Adhesion:
WCFN invites more organizations to join. To be eligible they must be working, in whole or in part, or contribute to the conservation of Nature, defined as animal species and their habitats but also landscape quality, as one implies the other. Members may use our logo with the mention: Member of the World Council for Nature.
Individuals are also invited to join.

[Rheghead]

I googled it too and found this text (below). Looks like they are quite a new organisation but certainly looks like they have more than one member........there are at least two of them......

Mission

The World Council for Nature (WCFN) was founded September 20th, 2011.
Its mission is to defend Nature against aggressions from man. The world has entered a phase of accelerated destruction, where traditional ecologists are no longer holding natural habitats and biodiversity as their first concerns. We denounce this perversion, and will defend Nature as our number one priority.

Our mission in more detail —> http://wcfn.org/2011/09/20/hello-world/ (http://wcfn.org/2011/09/20/hello-world/)

Membership

List of members:
- Save the Eagles International (STEI), global
- Centro de Investigaciones y Promoción de Iniciativas para Conocer y Proteger la Naturaleza (CIPI-CPN) -”Iberica 2000“, global
- Federación de Asociaciones de Félix Rodríguez de la Fuente, Spain
- Toronto Wind Action, Canada
- NA-PAW – federation of 78 organizations from North America
- Great Lakes Wind Truth, Canada
- Nieuwerust Noise & Bird Watch, South Africa
- Lake Superior Action Research Conservation, Canada
- Patrimonio Natural y Cultural de Extremadura, Spain
- Ecocultura Argentina, Argentina
- Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco, Puerto Rico
- Action for Protection of Wild Animals (APOWA), India
- Asociacion Plataforma El Quichote contra los molinos, Spain
- Πρωτοβουλία Πολιτών για τη Διάσωση του Πράμνειου Όρους
Citizens’ Initiative for Saving Mount Pramnos – Save Pramnos, Ikaria, Greece
- Friends of Mojave, United States
- 中國香港地貌岩石保育協會
Association for Geoconservation, Hong Kong, China
- Plataforma de Afectados de la Línea de Alta Tensión del Robledo, Extremadura, Spain


Member of honor:
- Epifanio Rodriguez, volunteer who designed our logo. WCFN is endebted to you, Epifanio.
Adhesion:
WCFN invites more organizations to join. To be eligible they must be working, in whole or in part, or contribute to the conservation of Nature, defined as animal species and their habitats but also landscape quality, as one implies the other. Members may use our logo with the mention: Member of the World Council for Nature.
Individuals are also invited to join.

I was trying to get independent info, not stuff from its website.

Seemingly a good percentage of those are organisations set up by, run by or deeply in association with (you've guess it) Marc Duchamp himself. :) I've spoke to him on the internet quite a few times, he really is obsessed by his 'crusade'.

It strikes a sad image really, a one man outfit, at home by his computer carrying on a singular obsessional campaign against wind farms on the basis of fictitious statistics. And that is why he got banned from websites, he was making half of his stuff up.

[ywindythesecond]

It strikes a sad image really, a one man outfit, at home by his computer carrying on a singular obsessional campaign against wind farms on the basis of fictitious statistics.

Reggy,in the foregoing quote if the word "against" was replaced by "for", you would have described yourself to a "T".
I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Green_not_greed]

Reggy,in the foregoing quote if the word "against" was replaced by "for", you would have described yourself to a "T".
I couldn't have put it better myself.

Funny, I was thinking much the same myself !

[Rheghead]

Reggy,in the foregoing quote if the word "against" was replaced by "for", you would have described yourself to a "T".
I couldn't have put it better myself.

Heck pot calling the kettle black springs to mind, you are another with a singular irrational obsession against windfarms. lol

[fingalmacool]

It wont be long before they put huge turbines on the sea floor, is there going to be a study as to how many fish etc it will kill or do they not deserve as much thought as birds/ we dump that many dead fish so maybe not:confused

[Scout]

I think what you have to understand a lot of the places in Scotland has not had full study carried out by SNH so when wind farm companies carry out study lots of useful information are collected for SNH even ground study what type of flowers etc. Like life birds adapted to change. You take open country side land changes you could have rows of fields and the next houses built on them

[badger]

I cannot believe anyone thinks that because birds are already killed by cars, cats etc. adding another hazard is justified. Funny how it's illegal to kill an eagle or other protected bird by shooting or poisoning but not by erecting wind turbines because when they kill it's classed as an accident. How is it an accident putting turbines in the flight path of birds that may be killed by them? Yet more double standards.

Bird surveys, like protected mammals, are frequently not carried out thoroughly by developers, why would they? SNH only object if areas of national importance category are involved; sadly many people believe that if SNH don't object they don't have concerns. That's not true, they're just not allowed to.

As to offshore, we have no idea what damage we may be doing to marine life but by the time we do know it will be too late.

[Rheghead]

I cannot believe anyone thinks that because birds are already killed by cars, cats etc. adding another hazard is justified. Funny how it's illegal to kill an eagle or other protected bird by shooting or poisoning but not by erecting wind turbines because when they kill it's classed as an accident. How is it an accident putting turbines in the flight path of birds that may be killed by them? Yet more double standards.

Bird surveys, like protected mammals, are frequently not carried out thoroughly by developers, why would they? SNH only object if areas of national importance category are involved; sadly many people believe that if SNH don't object they don't have concerns. That's not true, they're just not allowed to.

As to offshore, we have no idea what damage we may be doing to marine life but by the time we do know it will be too late.

Marc Duchamp campaigns on a platform of protecting birds. If he is really serious about doing that then he should campaign against the greater risks to birds instead of wind turbines which offer to protect the environments in which those birds live.

That is where the real double standard lies.