Re: [SLN] Digest for swiftslocalnetwork@googlegroups.com - 9 updates in 4 topics

[Julie Cowley]

Re house martins in eaves - I spotted a nest in our small town this week that is on the wall plate below the eaves.  Near to it a cup is being constructed by another pair.

Julie Cowley

Swifts in the Strettons

On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 at 07:58, <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• Swifts and House Martins - 1 Update
• Formal complaint to IPCO and Surrey Police regarding Nest 1. Pound Road Colony, Banstead, 12 May. - 5 Updates
• Digest for swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com - 8 updates in 4 topics - 2 Updates
• Crataerina - a problem? - 1 Update

Swifts and House Martins

Mike Priaulx <michael...@yahoo.com>: Jun 10 07:52PM Ros, yes I've heard of something similar. House martins at a Peak District site nest in gaps in a stone wall of a building, I've seen photos on social media (can't exactly remember where...). Externally there is no mud, but could be similar to when Schwegler 1A bricks on Duchy of Cornwall sites are used, I believe house martins do take mud in. Therefore, here they could be using this hole in the building and have partly blocked up the entrance with mud. Swifts are larger so wouldn't be able to get in (likely a banger, based on the long time since it was last used). Might be completely wrong, but it's one possible explanation? All the best, Mike Islington and Hackney Swifts Groups +++ Ros Taylor - Kendal Swifts <rosalin...@gmail.com>: Jun 09 02:21AM -0700 We have a bit of a mystery from our swift watching last night (Monday 8th). We watched a swift circling around the side of a building where we have seen swifts and house martins nesting in natural sites for some years. Finally the swift tried hard to enter a site which we have only ever seen   occupied in 2018. However, the swift did not get in (acting much like a banger), and eventually, I am sure that a House Martin went in to that spot. No sign of usual mud nest cup. Has anyone seen this happening? Is it likely to be a banger, or an adult which has occupied the nest site before. Many thanks Ros Taylor Kendal Swifts

Back to top

Formal complaint to IPCO and Surrey Police regarding Nest 1. Pound Road Colony, Banstead, 12 May.

Banstead Swifts <banstea...@gmail.com>: Jun 10 03:18AM -0700 Thanks Alistair, that will be helpful for anyone else reading this thread.   Graham: thanks for clarifying that swifts are not Schedule 1, but are still afforded legal protection under the Act. The Police use swifts as not being schedule 1 as one of the reasons not to respond to reports of nest crime. I think we also need to consider that many swift nests are also occupied by sparrows as roosts throughout the year, until the swifts invite them to relocate for 3 months a year. So I think we can expect the nest site to be protected by their presence year round too.   We also need to clarify that if swifts return to a nest site after obstruction that it discounts as a wildlife crime and negates any grounds to pursue a case legally: because damage is not only physical damage.   I am probably now going to open a hornets nest, but this needs to be discussed: I apologise if this upsets anyone, but my focus is purely on the swifts and why the law in place to protect them, is not being used by The Police. If my communication appears blunt I apologise, I am autistic and direct communication is a trait. My heart and intentions are always in the right place and I am extremely committed, loyal and determined on the issue of swifts.   Context: I am using my experiences and awareness of:   1. Knighton Road, Earlswood - a whole colony of up to 12 swift nests lost due to re-roofing of open eave properties in August 2021/22 by Raven Housing Trust (lots of communication followed between Reigate Swifts and us to Raven - even a document on how to survey for swifts before building works) 2. Pound Road Colony - autumn 2022 - we believe sparrows were blocked in hole filling in which some were swift nest sites, yes out of season, and yes swift nests are not protected out of season, but we assume sparrow roosting sites are? Raven Housing Trust. (lots of communication followed between us and Raven). 3. Pound Road Colony, nest site 1, May 2026, active nest, partially obstructed by new flue pipe fitted at odd angle. Request to move pipe to the original upright position in March, when the pipe was first replaced, ignored twice, then answered on our 3rd email as: no we will not move the pipe. May, swift seen colliding the pipe. Campaign commenced. No response to advising of the situation and a petition had been set up. Pressure increased with other independent support: still no reply from Raven, then scaffolding is erected over the nest site, making it even worse. Swifts struggle for long periods of time to access the nest, sometimes accessing it, other times giving up, eventually disappear for 3.5 and 4 days only to be reunited at the nest site after obstructions were removed. Raven deny they committed a wildlife crime, they have instead made 'us' the problem. Raven Housing Trust. 5. Burgess Hill, roofing starts in the swift season where around 6 active nests are. Spotted on Burgess Hill Swift Supporters FB page. Work is halted till October but only due to residents and an intervention by a contact of Graham Knights. Clarion Housing 6. Regent House, Dorking, up to 22 swift nests in a colony of at least a decade old. Well documented and presented to planning in the application to demolish and rebuild. Clarion Housing 7. St Peter's Hospital (?) Maldon, Essex. Undergoing renovation. Estimated up to 6 nests, obstructed by scaffolding. Reported on here. John had emailed the NHS 2 weeks prior with no response. I advised John, and he has told us that they have now agreed to move the scaffolding asap and are willing to allow the swift group to go in and map out the swift nest sites on the buildings prior to further work (a positive response, eventually). By NHS.   This list will miss many out, I know, but even this list tells you something about why we are now at over a 70% decline in our swift population. It is a national disgrace that it is allowed to continue and I now see the Police not enforcing as enabling that decline.   BUT...on every single one of the cases above, where was the required building survey that should have been carried out 48 hours before?   Nobody is learning. They simply throw a couple of nest boxes if you protest at their actions enough and secure some positive PR, that they pay for themselves, out of being nature lovers as a result. Then they repeat the same scenario just a few months or year later.   I don't know why but there is a lot of confusion around swifts and the law and I think that is largely down to the Police narrowly interpreting the law, to find any excuse not to enforce, when we have the sad occasions of being given no option but to report a wildlife crime and expect help. Unfortunately it seems that the majority of the reportees on swift crime receive anything but help. They are more likely to be gaslit and intimidated.   We are all very good at saying 'Swifts are protected by law' and they are, but when things go wrong, it seems 'swifts are protected by law' only on paper. Then the understanding of that protection seems diluted, lost and not discussed.   Either we start saying 'swifts are protected by the law, on paper, but jolly good luck in getting the protection in practice' or perhaps we should stop saying it at all and just let society do it's things to swifts and hope that the next generation of swifts move into a nest box 10 years later.   So when a wildlife crime happens to swifts, where we lose a nest/s or birds what should be done? This does need to be addressed. We need to hear what can be done, which parts of the law do protect them, not which parts do not. We need to be brave and bold with legislation in our hands.   My point is: if we are all happy to quote the law around swifts before a crime, we should certainly be brave and bold enough to challenge when swifts are victims and have not received the protection and service from the Police they are afforded under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981. This is why we are challenging the Police. Protect the Wild are doing the same.   We know there are some who are working relentlessly on trying to get organisations, businesses and individuals to stop committing or repeating wildlife crimes against swifts, but collective action is required and I feel from this community. Many of these offenders are repeat offenders. They never learn to take the law and responsibility seriously and are not enforced to. We want to change that.     - I would like to propose that incidents are collected and kept on a database as a part of SLN as a data collection project. This could be perhaps a one person role, where an individuals searches FB and other social networks aswell as log those shared in this group. This will create a good source of data on the crimes that are occurring and outcomes, we will be able to see how Police responses vary around the country, who are the repeat offenders etc etc.     We never, ever want to see a site where 22 established and well known swift nests were demolished, where just one small corner wall stood, and whilst there 7 swifts were overhead. 2 swifts dropped down and screamed twice around the remains of that corner, in what we believe was the act of looking for their nest site.   It was the most distressing experience along with just 10 days prior, watching our own 2 resident swifts hitting scaffolding poles, brickwork and planks when trying to access their nest. Thedis stress and trauma that it puts the swift, what we consider a highly intelligent and sensitive bird go through, is just too painful to consider.   With kind regards Annie & Barry

Banstead Swifts <banstea...@gmail.com>: Jun 10 03:19AM -0700 It is just so disgraceful Peta.   On Sunday, 7 June 2026 at 08:21:56 UTC+1 Peta Sams wrote:

Banstead Swifts <banstea...@gmail.com>: Jun 10 03:27AM -0700 EDIT for clarity:   We wrote:   We also need to clarify that if swifts return to a nest site after obstruction that it discounts as a wildlife crime and negates any grounds to pursue a case legally: because damage is not only physical damage. - this sentence is muddled, so we correct:   We were told after our swifts returned to the nest after abandoning it for 4 days, that now meant there was no legal recourse. We believe this is incorrect and reflects a too narrow interpretation of the law . 'Damage' is not only physical damage, eg: if the birds return but do not lay eggs, then that is damage and there are likely many other examples. It is clearly not acceptable to create a situation where swifts are forced to abandon their nest for days in the middle of the breeding season.   In addition, just because there has not been a case pursued in court, or they have and not won, it does not mean a swift wildlife crime will never win in court. It does not mean it is not worth trying. If there is a 50% chance of success it is worth the challenge. A landmark case is needed to benefit the whole population of swifts in this country.     On Wednesday, 10 June 2026 at 11:18:20 UTC+1 Banstead Swifts wrote:

Louise at Bolton and Bury Swifts <super...@outlook.com>: Jun 10 02:05PM I completely agree with everything you have written Annie. I have been involved in similar incidents but with no so quite tragic outcomes. There is no support for individuals dealing with crimes against Swifts. Making a point of pursuing your case as far as possible is the right thing to do but not without a lot of stress, time and anguish for those of you involved.   Thank you for taking this forward I feel and hope it will ultimately benefit all Swift groups and people who are fighting for nature.   Best Wishes, Louise   [image] [See the source image] [image]   Bolton & Bury Swifts Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/BoltonAndBurySwifts/> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/boltonandburyswifts/> House Martin Conservation<https://housemartinconservation.com/> Bolton Green Umbrella<https://boltongreenumbrella.org.uk/>     ________________________________ From: swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Banstead Swifts <banstea...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 11:27:19 AM To: swiftslocalnetwork <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [SLN] Re: Formal complaint to IPCO and Surrey Police regarding Nest 1. Pound Road Colony, Banstead, 12 May.   EDIT for clarity:   We wrote:   We also need to clarify that if swifts return to a nest site after obstruction that it discounts as a wildlife crime and negates any grounds to pursue a case legally: because damage is not only physical damage. - this sentence is muddled, so we correct:   We were told after our swifts returned to the nest after abandoning it for 4 days, that now meant there was no legal recourse. We believe this is incorrect and reflects a too narrow interpretation of the law . 'Damage' is not only physical damage, eg: if the birds return but do not lay eggs, then that is damage and there are likely many other examples. It is clearly not acceptable to create a situation where swifts are forced to abandon their nest for days in the middle of the breeding season.   In addition, just because there has not been a case pursued in court, or they have and not won, it does not mean a swift wildlife crime will never win in court. It does not mean it is not worth trying. If there is a 50% chance of success it is worth the challenge. A landmark case is needed to benefit the whole population of swifts in this country.     On Wednesday, 10 June 2026 at 11:18:20 UTC+1 Banstead Swifts wrote: Thanks Alistair, that will be helpful for anyone else reading this thread.   Graham: thanks for clarifying that swifts are not Schedule 1, but are still afforded legal protection under the Act. The Police use swifts as not being schedule 1 as one of the reasons not to respond to reports of nest crime. I think we also need to consider that many swift nests are also occupied by sparrows as roosts throughout the year, until the swifts invite them to relocate for 3 months a year. So I think we can expect the nest site to be protected by their presence year round too.   We also need to clarify that if swifts return to a nest site after obstruction that it discounts as a wildlife crime and negates any grounds to pursue a case legally: because damage is not only physical damage.   I am probably now going to open a hornets nest, but this needs to be discussed: I apologise if this upsets anyone, but my focus is purely on the swifts and why the law in place to protect them, is not being used by The Police. If my communication appears blunt I apologise, I am autistic and direct communication is a trait. My heart and intentions are always in the right place and I am extremely committed, loyal and determined on the issue of swifts.   Context: I am using my experiences and awareness of:   1. Knighton Road, Earlswood - a whole colony of up to 12 swift nests lost due to re-roofing of open eave properties in August 2021/22 by Raven Housing Trust (lots of communication followed between Reigate Swifts and us to Raven - even a document on how to survey for swifts before building works) 2. Pound Road Colony - autumn 2022 - we believe sparrows were blocked in hole filling in which some were swift nest sites, yes out of season, and yes swift nests are not protected out of season, but we assume sparrow roosting sites are? Raven Housing Trust. (lots of communication followed between us and Raven). 3. Pound Road Colony, nest site 1, May 2026, active nest, partially obstructed by new flue pipe fitted at odd angle. Request to move pipe to the original upright position in March, when the pipe was first replaced, ignored twice, then answered on our 3rd email as: no we will not move the pipe. May, swift seen colliding the pipe. Campaign commenced. No response to advising of the situation and a petition had been set up. Pressure increased with other independent support: still no reply from Raven, then scaffolding is erected over the nest site, making it even worse. Swifts struggle for long periods of time to access the nest, sometimes accessing it, other times giving up, eventually disappear for 3.5 and 4 days only to be reunited at the nest site after obstructions were removed. Raven deny they committed a wildlife crime, they have instead made 'us' the problem. Raven Housing Trust. 5. Burgess Hill, roofing starts in the swift season where around 6 active nests are. Spotted on Burgess Hill Swift Supporters FB page. Work is halted till October but only due to residents and an intervention by a contact of Graham Knights. Clarion Housing 6. Regent House, Dorking, up to 22 swift nests in a colony of at least a decade old. Well documented and presented to planning in the application to demolish and rebuild. Clarion Housing 7. St Peter's Hospital (?) Maldon, Essex. Undergoing renovation. Estimated up to 6 nests, obstructed by scaffolding. Reported on here. John had emailed the NHS 2 weeks prior with no response. I advised John, and he has told us that they have now agreed to move the scaffolding asap and are willing to allow the swift group to go in and map out the swift nest sites on the buildings prior to further work (a positive response, eventually). By NHS.   This list will miss many out, I know, but even this list tells you something about why we are now at over a 70% decline in our swift population. It is a national disgrace that it is allowed to continue and I now see the Police not enforcing as enabling that decline.   BUT...on every single one of the cases above, where was the required building survey that should have been carried out 48 hours before?   Nobody is learning. They simply throw a couple of nest boxes if you protest at their actions enough and secure some positive PR, that they pay for themselves, out of being nature lovers as a result. Then they repeat the same scenario just a few months or year later.   I don't know why but there is a lot of confusion around swifts and the law and I think that is largely down to the Police narrowly interpreting the law, to find any excuse not to enforce, when we have the sad occasions of being given no option but to report a wildlife crime and expect help. Unfortunately it seems that the majority of the reportees on swift crime receive anything but help. They are more likely to be gaslit and intimidated.   We are all very good at saying 'Swifts are protected by law' and they are, but when things go wrong, it seems 'swifts are protected by law' only on paper. Then the understanding of that protection seems diluted, lost and not discussed.   Either we start saying 'swifts are protected by the law, on paper, but jolly good luck in getting the protection in practice' or perhaps we should stop saying it at all and just let society do it's things to swifts and hope that the next generation of swifts move into a nest box 10 years later.   So when a wildlife crime happens to swifts, where we lose a nest/s or birds what should be done? This does need to be addressed. We need to hear what can be done, which parts of the law do protect them, not which parts do not. We need to be brave and bold with legislation in our hands.   My point is: if we are all happy to quote the law around swifts before a crime, we should certainly be brave and bold enough to challenge when swifts are victims and have not received the protection and service from the Police they are afforded under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981. This is why we are challenging the Police. Protect the Wild are doing the same.   We know there are some who are working relentlessly on trying to get organisations, businesses and individuals to stop committing or repeating wildlife crimes against swifts, but collective action is required and I feel from this community. Many of these offenders are repeat offenders. They never learn to take the law and responsibility seriously and are not enforced to. We want to change that.     * I would like to propose that incidents are collected and kept on a database as a part of SLN as a data collection project. This could be perhaps a one person role, where an individuals searches FB and other social networks aswell as log those shared in this group. This will create a good source of data on the crimes that are occurring and outcomes, we will be able to see how Police responses vary around the country, who are the repeat offenders etc etc.   We never, ever want to see a site where 22 established and well known swift nests were demolished, where just one small corner wall stood, and whilst there 7 swifts were overhead. 2 swifts dropped down and screamed twice around the remains of that corner, in what we believe was the act of looking for their nest site.   It was the most distressing experience along with just 10 days prior, watching our own 2 resident swifts hitting scaffolding poles, brickwork and planks when trying to access their nest. Thedis stress and trauma that it puts the swift, what we consider a highly intelligent and sensitive bird go through, is just too painful to consider.   With kind regards Annie & Barry       On Sunday, 7 June 2026 at 13:16:03 UTC+1 gpk...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all   The use of the word "recklessly" only appears in the Scottish version of section 1(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and so this is not applicable in England and Wales.   The other reference to recklessness relating to birds are in section 1(5) of the Act and only apply to schedule 1 species. Swifts are not on this list.   Regards   Graham Knight Sawbridgeworth Swifts Swifts in Hertfordshire   On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 at 12:58, alofanglia <alis...@alofanglia.plus.com> wrote:    Here’s the link for the legislation the words intentionally and recklessly are included <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69> Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69> legislation.gov.uk<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69> [apple-touch-icon.png]<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69>   Alistair <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69> Sent from my iPhone   On 7 Jun 2026, at 08:22, 'Peta Sams' via swiftslocalnetwork <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com> wrote:   We had the same problem in Shropshire last year with the WCO saying that destroy/destruction was physically breaking the egg so scaffolding stopping HMs getting to incubate their eggs wasn’t a problem   Sophie Streeter waded through the WCA and found that the definition in the act is   “destroy”, in relation to an egg, includes doing anything to the egg which is calculated to prevent it from hatching, and “destruction” shall be construed accordingly;   Still wouldn’t accept it.     Peta     -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "swiftslocalnetwork" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to swiftslocalnetw...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/3944c0fd-05cd-4dd8-861a-67987f9d2206n%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/3944c0fd-05cd-4dd8-861a-67987f9d2206n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.   -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "swiftslocalnetwork" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to swiftslocalnetw...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/E04BE423-1D3D-40FA-9BF0-D4B77B92169C%40alofanglia.plus.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/E04BE423-1D3D-40FA-9BF0-D4B77B92169C%40alofanglia.plus.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.   -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "swiftslocalnetwork" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to swiftslocalnetw...@googlegroups.com<mailto:swiftslocalnetwork+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/49500479-4c6e-407e-8067-358f58fb15a5n%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/49500479-4c6e-407e-8067-358f58fb15a5n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

Alistair <alis...@alofanglia.plus.com>: Jun 10 03:38PM +0100 I agree with Lousie and it is a stressful activity David against Goliath…   I have just been listening to the Law Show on radio 4 maybe they’d be interested in the case or the case of wildlife law…   https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006tgy1   Alistair

Back to top

Digest for swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com - 8 updates in 4 topics

John Denis Le Seve <johnl...@hotmail.co.uk>: Jun 10 12:40PM Good news! St Peter's Hospital (Maldon, Essex) renovation team are unanimously agreed that we should help the nesting swifts. They are going to remove the scaffolding before mid July. (At present I don't think it is impeding access). They will not block the holes. Furthermore they are happy to consider putting up more swift boxes. On Friday I'm meeting the project manager and we will have a close look at the nest holes and look at how we can install more swift boxes. Isnt that great! John   ________________________________ From: swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com> Sent: 10 June 2026 07:58 To: Digest recipients <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com> Subject: [SLN] Digest for swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com - 8 updates in 4 topics   swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/swiftslocalnetwork/topics> [Google Groups logo] <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> Google Groups<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> Topic digest View all topics<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/swiftslocalnetwork/topics>   * Crataerina - a problem? - 3 Updates * Digest for swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com - 9 updates in 1 topic - 3 Updates * UK SAW Update No. 6 at 9th June - 1 Update * Swifts and House Martins - 1 Update   Crataerina - a problem? <http://groups.google.com/group/swiftslocalnetwork/t/40c5ae6bfa165a03?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> <an...@tali.me.uk>: Jun 09 08:32AM +0100   Much of the rationale for demonising Crataerina seems to be based on its less than appealing appearance and unfortunate dependence upon Swift blood to survive.       But what are the facts? Review of the literature suggests that there is no evidence that infestation with Crataerina has any impact on the breeding success of Swifts. This seems at odds with common sense or “logic” which would surely dictate that any parasite which removes blood must be having a negative impact on survival?       However, we know Swifts and Crataerina must have evolved together over millions of years and so, on a population level, given that Swifts are still with us as a species, they can clearly cope with some blood loss. On the other hand, at the nest level, on occasion, perhaps an overwhelming Crataerina infestation can either be the consequence, or the cause, of chick weakness and death?       It’s worth bearing in mind that wild birds host an astonishing array of parasites. I have no information for Swifts but swallows, for example, have been found to host “..at least 16 species of helminths, 8 species of mites, 3 species of louseflies, 7 species of fleas, 1 species of feather louse and 11 species of protozoan blood parasites” (this is a quote from Ian Newton’s book Bird Populations) so leaping to conclusions about the one parasite which is actually visible may be unwise.       Returning to the statement that Crataerina has not been shown to have any impact on swift survival, might it be worth someones time to review the publications which were used to come to that conclusion? Did they have control nests (i.e. crataerina-free?) against which breeding success in infested nests was compared, or did they show that the level of infestation was unrelated to nesting success? Either way, surely now we can look at this in more detail?       Every year thousands of Crataerina-free swift nests are installed across the country, many with cameras. According to the literature the Crataerina lifecycle takes place entirely at the level of the nest site. Swifts leave for migration free of Crataerina and arrive back free of Crataerina, so the only way a nest site can become exposed to Crataerina is if a returning swift happens to visit an infested nest en route. Although recent work suggests this is more likely than was originally thought to be the case, you’d think that new site sites would only gradually be infested with the parasite, allowing us the opportunity to compare breeding success in Crat-free nests with that in infested nests. This would need a fair number of nests to obtain a meaningful conclusion but having the equivalent of a placebo-controlled trial to assess the impact of Crataerina would make for an interesting piece of research.       Andy Broadhurst               Member of SLN Swifts & Planning Group       abroa...@derbyshireswiftconservation.org   07941 349002       Derbyshire Swift Conservation is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation.   Registered Charity Number 1206439       From: swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Hythe Scream Sent: 09 June 2026 01:49 To: swiftslocalnetwork <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [SLN] Crataerina - a problem?       Thanks for the links Dick. I'll take a look, but I can't get experimental data out of these without cooperation from the owners.   Thats why we have the best opportunity within our group, where the issue was originally mentioned and clearly upsets many of us.   I am happy to facilitate everything and report on the outcomes, but I need data from those with problem boxes, and the ability for the conditions to be changed and monitored for a couple of years. If no one comes forward, then we lose our chance to help these lovely birds. If anyone reads this message, please read my previous one too, and message me privately if you want to take part. You can use a different email address to the one you use here if you wish (send me a message to hythe...@gmail.com <mailto:hythescream<mailto:hythescream>@gmail.com> Put "Crataerina survey" in the subject line.) I will not divulge your name or location, I will just speak with you individually and collate the results anonymously. If you know anyone else outside of this group that would like to take part, then talk to them and show them my previous email if you are able to.   To take part in this important research, you need to have boxes where they are monitored with a camera, currently experience flat fly infestation, and where you are able to remove the box for treatment during the off-season.       I know that many of you will be worried about the swifts under your control and the affects that this parasite has on their general wellbeing. It's horrible to watch, so let's help them to lead happier, and more comfortable lives, and to be more productive towards our goals to slow their demise in the UK.       Thank you   Ron       On Monday, 8 June 2026 at 12:29:35 UTC+1 Dick Newell wrote:   Well Ron,   If you want to study this issue, there are plenty of Swift webcams here: https://gierzwaluw.website/webcams.html   Let us know when you find one with a big infestation.   Dick       On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 12:18, Hythe Scream <hythe...@gmail.com <mailto:hythe.<mailto:hythe.>..@gmail.com> > wrote:   Ok folks, let's deal with this sensibly. Some of you are getting confused.       I'll start again with the problem, the evidence, the cure and the benefits.       The problem.   From camera footage, it's clear that the birds visually suffer from this infection. That clearly upsets them, and also upsets me to watch any animal being uncomfortable. There is some suggestion that they will leave their nests even. But onto the physical effects, it's got to affect their production. Maybe not every time, but if the weather is bad, food supply a little low, and you have the straw that breaks the camel's back. No one knows how many young swifts perish from this in their first flight to Africa. The motality rate is high, and somewhere around 50%. They might struggle to get there for all we know because of this problem. Until they can shrug off the fly, they will be weakened and struggle to get enough food.   The evidence.   Firstly, all known animals that lose blood will fail to perform at their best. This can be demonstrated by taking half a cup of blood off you each day (the swift equivalent scaled up) and then sending you down to Tesco's to get me some food 20 times a day. I am guessing that it will soon have an effect on my food quantity! You can observe those with anaemia to see how they suffer. In the real but strange world of cycling, riders used to ride in the mountains to improve their blood, then take a few pints to pop into the freezer. On race day, they would replace their blood with the 5* frozen blood variety to win their races. Blood quality and quantity is important. Now onto blood sucking parasites. Research has suggested that there are ZERO known cases in ANY creature on this earth where blood sucking insects give any benefits back. A parasite and symbiosis are two completely unrelated things. Most blood suckers will cause blood loss and even spread disease. Human equivalents of that are Malaria, Dengue fever, Lymes disease, Zika, Trench fever, the Plague and many more. They all, without fail, disable people. The massive loss of swift blood is bad enough, but they may even have a disease that's not yet been discovered. It could even be part of their recent demise. A disease can be newer than 50 million years old. Take HIV as a recent example. Lots of diseases spread across species these days, and for all we know, a "relatively harmless" fly could now be spreading blood borne diseases too. They might kill the birds after 6 months! Think about that for a minute!! Reading the swift article, the evidence quality around this fly is very sketchy to say the least.   The cure   We can't cure this disease, that's clear. But we are in control of their population increase in the UK, and we want the best for our swifts. When I used the word "disinfect", that doesn't mean hoovering out their nest or using bleach!! I explained that the best way is to put the box into a bag, and then into the freezer for 48 hours. Alternatively, you can hand pick the pupae. Obviously, many boxes are no longer accessible. But we have a plan. In my own case, I don't yet have any birds in my boxes, but I designed them to be taken off easily so I can do this when it's time. I suggest that when it's possible, you install boxes in such a way that they can be maintained. You might need to remove dead chicks or unhatched eggs as well. Many boxes are designed with removable fronts. But it's better to take them down if possible. (As a side issue, I'm working on a box design that can be removed and put back up from the ground. This would revolutionise this issue)   The nest itself should not be damaged by sweeping it all out. As mentioned, this is important. I pre-feather my new nest cups before installation anyway.   The benefits   Firstly, the swifts will live comfortably, and be able to get on with the job at hand. We will know that they are not suffering, even if we can't watch this on camera. Any marginal gains can have a massive impact on their population's plight, although we cant measure this.   The science   If there is anyone with cameras and known infections, would they please raise their hand if they are able to help with some citizen science. The chances of a PHD being conducted in this day and age are near to zero, so it's down to people like us. We are the knowledgeable custodians. We need boxes with infections and cameras. We need someone to hand pick, someone to freeze, and someone to monitor a control box. The more participants the better. I'm happy to design an experiment and collate the data.   As the original OP stated, watching them suffer is horrible. No one wants to see this. It's possible to stop it for any birds in your custody. That is a positive enough reason to do something about it.   Without real scientific studies, it's easy to dismiss this problem, but using logic and experience of other animals including humans, there's a good hypothesis to proceed with some remedial action. Every little helps as you say.       Thanks for listening to me repeating myself ;-)   Ron       On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 10:57, Tony Croft <the.cro...@gmail.com <mailto:the.cro.<mailto:the.cro.>..@gmail.com> > wrote:   Nest provision more important than the effect of the parasite I think based on what Dick is saying...still don't like seeing them there though!     Best Regards Tony       On Mon, 8 Jun 2026, 10:08 'Jean Stafford-Baker' via swiftslocalnetwork, <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com <mailto:swiftsloc.<mailto:swiftsloc.>..@googlegroups.com> > wrote:   Thanks for the reassurance Dick. We've seen Crataerina for the first time this year. It's good to know they won't negativity impact the Swifts.   We have no intention of touching the nest. We waited 8 years for our Swifts to choose our box & wouldn't interfere in that way.       Jean (Norwich)   Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=US_Acquisition_YMktg_315_SearchOrgConquer_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=US_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100002039&af_sub5=C01_Email_Static_&af_ios_store_cpp=0c38e4b0-a27e-40f9-a211-f4e2de32ab91&af_android_url=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yahoo.mobile.client.android.mail&listing=search_organize_conquer>       On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 9:18 am, Dick Newell   <dick....@gmail.com <mailto:dick..<mailto:dick..>..@gmail.com> > wrote:   For those of you who still think it is desirable to clean out a nest box at the end of the season, I can say that if you remove the nest, that is a terrible idea. The Oxford museum did this at one time, with negative effects on breeding success. They stopped doing it.       We proved conclusively that Swifts occupy nest boxes with a nest form much more quickly than nest boxes without. They are more likely to breed, as they don't have to first build a nest.       Preserving their nests intact is hugely more important than removing a parasite that has been proven to have no negative effects.       Besides, climbing a ladder to take down a nest box to put it in the freezer, then climbing the ladder again to put it back up, is twice as much ladder-climbing as putting up a box in the first place. Why not put up 2 more nest boxes for the same amount of ladder-climbing?       And as for chucking chemicals into the box, what are we thinking of?       What am I missing?   Dick       On Mon, 8 Jun 2026, 08:24 Tony Croft, <the.cro...@gmail.com <mailto:the.cro.<mailto:the.cro.>..@gmail.com> > wrote:   Good thinking....       We really don't know what's best...       Just wonder if we "disinfect" the nest box would thus put off a returning pair...?       We could try various practices in different colonies if that were possible? Perhaps interest someone in doing / orgaising a controlled trial across a few sites for a pHD or similar?       Just a thought....       To clean and sterilise or not to?         Best Regards Tony       On Sun, 7 Jun 2026, 22:56 Hythe Scream, <hythe...@gmail.com <mailto:hythe.<mailto:hythe.>..@gmail.com> > wrote:   Thanks for the research link Audrey. I read it!   There's no real evidence either way, but I would say that's because proper studies haven't or can't be carried out accurately enough to have a clear outcome.   Some consensus is the idea that there's a hidden symbiotic arrangement. That's possible, but there's no evidence at all to suggest this. There are two types of parasites, some like the "cleaner fish" do a good job for the host, but some just live off the host and survive in their own balance by not killing them. There's no rule about being symbiotic. Take flu as a virus example. There's nothing symbiotic about that! From what I have read, and understand about blood loss and irritation, there's no doubt that swifts do NOT benefit from this parasite at all, and it could easily cause them to move out of a perfectly good nest, or be weakened

Heidi Collishaw <heidico...@googlemail.com>: Jun 10 01:45PM +0100 That's great news John. Well done for securing this outcome, and do please pass on my/our thanks to their team, for making a good decision 😉. Regards Heidi Westow swifts. North Yorks.   On Wed, 10 Jun 2026, 13:40 John Denis Le Seve, <johnl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Back to top

Crataerina - a problem?

Tim Huckvale <tim.hu...@gmail.com>: Jun 10 05:34AM -0700 People may be interested in a video from one of my nest boxes: a swift that took up residence on 25th May this year is seen, 2 days later, bringing in a partner. Both are carrying crataerina but don't seem to be bothered by them. The first swift appears to have a couple of much smaller parasites as well.   The video is under 27 May at https://thesibfords.uk/about/swifts/swifts-2026   The pair have since laid two eggs. Unusually, I have recently seen several crataerina crawling over the eggs when both parents have been out, so perhaps this box has a higher than usual infestation.   Tim Huckvale Sibford Swifts

Back to top

You have received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to swiftslocalnetw...@googlegroups.com.