So very sad that she chose this nest site again.
There was talk of boarding up the nest ledge on the east side of the Radisson a few years ago. We were told that interfering with a nest site was prohibited by law.
Is moving the chicks not considered interfering with a nest site?
Just wondering.
Interfering with a nestsite generally means damaging or eliminating the option of nesting at a historic site. Outside of urban environments, there are great pains taken to prevent this - think of all the trails along the east coast that are closed to hikers/climbers during the nesting season. In urban areas, when birds show an interest and/or a nestbox is installed and the birds use it, projects like ours try to ensure that the building owners/managers understand what it means so that there aren't problems in the future. Doesn't always work though - think of the Kodak building last year (or was that the year before?). Sometimes the sites are lost permanently, hopefully just short-term as we hope will be the case with the WW birds 2010 nestsite. Sometimes the birds move themselves and after a few years, the site isn't considered "historic" and therefore not so vital for the project's efforts. The University site was like - after T-Rex moved, no one has spent any time there even when there was a nestbox. The ledge on the east side of the Radisson can't be modified without requiring as much access/maintenance as the putting a nest box - and it would be just as dangerous for pedestrians, traffic and buildings nearby. We would like them to not nest on this site but we don't want to interfere with the ledge for all its other purposes - pair bonding, site defense, courting, meals, etc. Its just the nesting we would prefer they did elsewhere, but if they insist, then it is their choice.
Here in Winnipeg, we like to keep nestsites that are working and watch the birds to find others we think might work. Cowboy's and Kate's site last year wasn't a successful site either. Neither was one site at the U of M or the one at the Hotel Fort Garry. The Basilica site was one we wouldn't have encouraged either if Burnsie had returned again. The Brandon Tower site has real potential, so despite a bad year last year, we are hopeful. We have hopes for some new sites we are working on, but time will tell if any peregrines think they are as appealing and can be successful at these sites.
This year's WW site is a site that isn't considered a successful site - we have lost 9 out of 11 eggs during incubation and 1 after hatching that had suffered so much trauma during incubation, it didn't have a chance to survive. Given a number of security issues and grave concerns for chick safety as they get older and particularly at fledging time, moving the chicks in this case is considered in the best interest of the all the peregrines - adults and chicks - at this site. We did in fact have plans in place to prevent Jules from nesting at this location but we couldn't get access before she be began laying - yet another security concern. Eggs are removed from nestsites if there are problems and suitable facilities are available to incubate safely. More common (a number of times in the last couple of years in Alberta as examples) chicks/fledglings are moved to new locations - sometimes hundreds of kilometres away - when the situation at their nestsite is deemed detrimental to their health, development or safety. This is the same thing, we just aren't moving them to a captive-breeding/rehab facility or into the nest of unrelated peregrines.
Hope that answers your question ...
