General Discussion
How do you know that it would be impossible or ineffective? Councils have powers to control seagull populations by egg painting during the mating season thereby reducing the numbers. Would mutch rather see more cygnets surviving to adulthood than worrying about the loss of some seagulls
Well, 1263, I don't agree, but, even if I did, then it would be (1) illegal; (2) impossible or ineffective.
and info here on the flooding risks at Dawlish Warren and Shutterton. https://www.getthedata.com/flood-map/dawlish-warren https://www.devon.gov.uk/floodriskmanagement/planning-and-development/ (this link shows the Dawlish Warren critical drainage area. Click on link and then scroll down and click on Dawlish Warren) ...
The draft Teignbridge Local Plan is recommending the following for the coast at Dawlish Warren “no active intervention” is proposed, allowing the coast to evolve naturally. These areas include: • Exe Estuary – Turf Lock to Powderham: Managed realignment in medium term – hold the line in short and long term. • Dawlish Warren (inner side): No active intervention in the short term with ...
All the more reason for some sort of cull on the huge seagull population in dawlish
Sorry carer, must have missed it somehow.
https://www.devonrose.co.uk/area-guides/
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g551656-d7277416-r604526606-Dawlish_and_Dawlish_Warren_Walk-Dawlish_Devon_England.html
I mentioned that nearly a week ago. https://dawlish.com/thread/details/48363
BBC Spotlight says this year's early brood had seven cygnets, now reduced to five by gulls.
