Jack Harrison

[robpartridge]

Hello again, and thanks for the extra advice. The reviews on Amazon are universally favourable, so it's looking imminent! Is the additional lens that you mention a Panasonic item or a universal thing, and generally available? As you can see, I'm not a camera buff but getting there,

Rob

[NickB]

Hi
Jack is the man who manages to get what he wants by waiting and watching and trying things out; hence he "put together" his set-up from some bits he had and a bargain lens he found. I just went for the Panasonic branded achromatic (as they call it) "close-up lens" I used an my FZ50, since I knew it would work but it was more expensive...
This link is what I mean....
http://www.red-onions.co.uk/product_inf ... _id=128789
and you would need one of these...
http://www.red-onions.co.uk/product_inf ... h=149_9714
N

[Jack Harrison]

Firstly, find a Sigma achromatic (it must be achromatic for best result, simple single element lenses are inferior) close-up lens by trawling the net. It doesn’t matter what diameter it is (but likely to be 52 mms). They are as scarce as Rocking Horse Sh*t (that’s a traditional military term). Then and only then worry about the cheap adaptors/stepping rings that will be required. ((I will give advice about that later as required). But finding then achromatic (fully colour corrected) lens is the challenge. I found a back-up (spare) recently for £10 so there are bargains to be had.

Jack

[robpartridge]

Thanks to you both. I have checked out the links, Nick, and saved them for future reference, just in case. Mostly I expect to be taking in-the-wild shots of butterflies and dragon- and damselflies, and so may not need the additional lens yet, but I am now trying to track down a rocking horse. Will let you know how I get on,

Thanks again,

Rob

[Jack Harrison]

New domain

I have just added another domain (and amazed it was available) to the two I already had, namely:
http://www.weatherjack.co.uk
and
http://www.snapperjack.co.uk

I blame Guy for suggesting an excellent name for someone interested in bugs

This new website is just a start but you might like to look at:

http://www.buggerjack.co.uk

Jack (PS. Registering this domain name costs the princely sum of £3 per annum)

[NickB]

I blame Guy for suggesting an excellent name for someone interested in bugs
This new website is just a start but you might like to look at:
http://www.buggerjack.co.uk

...h'mm that one may get caught by some parental and other "1984-style" filters, don't you think, Jack?

[Jack Harrison]

If you want the PC way, go to snapperjack and then follow link to bugs.

But you must agree that my new domain name is memorable!

Info on domain availability

nick-the-bugger.co.uk is free

As is guy-knows-everything.eu

Sadly pete-the-bugger.co.uk is already taken but pete-the-bastard.co.uk is available

And of course:
gruditch-the-smooth.co.uk is there for the taking.

Jack

[Jack Harrison]

1st September

Very fresh Peacocks and Small Tortoiseshells on the fading buddleia.
(for info of FZ38 users, these two were taken at ISO 200,no close-up lens and no flash)
The Garden Spider had a fly-supper waiting for him once he had eaten the Ladybird.
(this one with flash and close-up lens)

Jack

[Jack Harrison]

Sparkling but cold weather here in South Cambridgeshire but of course no butterflies. So I enjoyed the autumn colours on a walk to the adjacent village and back.

http://www.weatherjackwx.co.uk/snapper/ ... n-pt2.html

Jack

[Vince Massimo]

Nice photos Jack. I see you have put a question mark against the photo of the Guelder Rose berries. They are in fact Holly berries. Having said that, it's quite an unusual looking Holly. The leaves are spineless in this case and the berries look unusually transluscent, which reminded me of a Guelder Rose as well. However, Guelders are deciduous and the leaves at this time of year will either have dropped or be looking very yellow and tatty.

Vince

[NickB]

Sparkling but cold weather here in South Cambridgeshire but of course no butterflies. So I enjoyed the autumn colours on a walk to the adjacent village and back.
http://www.weatherjackwx.co.uk/snapper/ ... n-pt2.html
Jack

Nice pics Jack; Not Sure #1 I think is Privet from your First series of pictures....

N

[Jack Harrison]

Thanks Vince, I have corrected. Yes now I think about it and see the sequence of shots, it was indeed holly. I believe that holly is only spiny low down (to deter browsers) and higher up, less spiny. The berries in the picture were not particularly high but were adjacent to a tarmac footpath at the edge of a minor road. Can that holly possibly know that deer (the most likely browsers in this area) don't normally feed beside roads?

And Nick. Thanks for the privet i/d.

Jack

[Padfield]

If you want the PC way, go to snapperjack and then follow link to bugs.

But you must agree that my new domain name is memorable!

Info on domain availability

nick-the-bugger.co.uk is free

As is guy-knows-everything.eu

Sadly pete-the-bugger.co.uk is already taken but pete-the-bastard.co.uk is available

And of course:
gruditch-the-smooth.co.uk is there for the taking.

Jack

I created my website back in 1996 and even then it was difficult to find a free domain along the lines of 'Guy's Butts'. I had to settle for guypadfield.com.

Guy

[Jack Harrison]

Nothing better to do with my time!

Jack

[Jack Harrison]

Millie in heaven.

Jack

[Jack Harrison]

Cairo Hill

Nearby Heydon Hill but perhaps Cairo or Tahrir would be a more appropriate name after the confrontation there on Thursday. A digger was in action and a pile of cut-down trees and shrubs from an ancient hedge – which had some substantial mature trees - had been produced. I joined a group of other locals who were incensed. Another ancient hedge was apparently next in line as were some mediaeval strip lynchets (ancient farm workings). We actually felt sorry for the young digger operator who was only doing what he had been told. He was forced to stop.

Phone calls were made, the land owner couldn’t be contacted but finally the farm manager turned up. He came into the field blazing on about “Health and Safety” being near the digger. When it was pointed out that the digger was turned off, he then told us we were trespassing. Now some of the group had standing permission from the land owner to wander over his land. I left them arguing the case. I didn’t have permission so was indeed trespassing. I wasn’t actually TOLD to leave but did so to minimise further conflict. The remaining group were will arguing and still attempting to contact the local council.

Apparently the farmer’s reason for grubbing up the trees and hedge was rabbit infestation.

I’m not sure about the law on this but will be following the confrontation with interest.

Jack

[Piers]

Bit of a Catch-22 potentially for the land owner Jack,

If rabbits are present the land owner is legally obliged under the Agriculture Act 1947 to control or eradicate them and can be served notice under the Pests Act 1954 to force him or her to action. If he or she fails to act then they could face prosecution.

Pests Act 1954
Control of rabbits: Information for occupiers of land

1. Responsibilities of occupiers to control rabbits
Under Section 1 of the Pests Act 1954, the whole of England, apart from the City of London and Isles of Scilly, has been declared a rabbit clearance area. Under Section 1(2) of the 1954 Act, all occupiers of land in a rabbit clearance area have a continuing obligation to kill or take any wild rabbits living on, or resorting to, their land, unless they can establish that it is not reasonably practicable to do so. If it is not practicable to destroy the rabbits, occupiers have an obligation to prevent the rabbits from causing damage elsewhere by, for example, fencing them in with rabbit-proof fencing. The obligation to control rabbits is irrespective of the use being made of the occupier’s land or that of their neighbours.

2. Enforcement of the obligation to control rabbits
The Secretary of State has powers, under Section 98 of the Agriculture Act 1947, to serve a notice on an occupier requiring them to take specified action against the rabbits. If an occupier fails to take the specified action they would be liable for prosecution. In addition, the Secretary of State can also arrange for a third party to carry out the necessary control work on the occupier’s land and then recover the cost of this work from the occupier.

This actually happened to a land owner locally to me, where his was indeed served notice to take action to control or eradicate the rabbit population on his land following several complaints from adjoining land owners and house holders.

So on the one hand, your land owner (who may perhaps have been served notice already) is legally obliged to act, which would explain his attempts to destroy a possible known warren, but also has to contend with other elements of the local population who object to his actions.

Additionally it is an offence to prevent or obstruct the land owner from taking the required action, under the Damage by Pests Act 1949, so your local protestors could be skating on thin ice if the land owner has indeed already been served notice under the Pests Act of 1954.

The only level of protection likely to be afforded to the land (or unlikely in this instance) is if the area is a SSSI (although even in this situation it could, ironically, be a requirement of the SSSI that the rabbit population is controlled), or if the strip lynchets are Scheduled Ancient Monuments, which is also quite improbable.

In the matter of 'health and safety', this is a total myth perpetuated by the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail. The reality for the land owner is that were anyone to harm themselves on, or be harmed by the excavator, irrespective of whether or not it is working, the land owner would in all likelihood be liable and could face significant injury compensation claims.

The oft heard mantra 'elf & safety gone mad' actually refers to a legal system where any vexatious litigant is awarded massive personal injury compensation by the courts at the drop of a hat!

Felix.

[Jack Harrison]

I don't yet know the legalities of notices being served, etc. in this case.

But bl**dy hell. My google search suggest that rabbits cause circa £100 million damage annual to crops. That's less than £2 per head of population; in other words, peanuts. I for one would much rather have a hedge and rabbits. An outdated law (1954) that was enacted long before we became so conservation minded. Perhaps time for a re-think in the light of modern attitudes.

Sorry, just can't get away from politics.

Jack

[Piers]

Rabbits are a massive problem for farmers and land owners, they can also be a huge problem on SSSI's as well, not to mention ancient monuments etc etc. Rabbits are a significant and serious pest species, they are not 'cute Easter bunnies'.

I hardly think the laws are out dated, after all the rabbit population across the South of England in 2009 was approaching the pre myxoma days of the 1930's. The law is just as relevant as ever, hence it's continued enforcement.

You'll be suggesting conservation of the Brown Rat and the Grey Squirrel next..!

Felix.

[Jack Harrison]

The hedges in question.

I haven't been to look today as I've been doing a tour of the M25.

The hedge on the left had been almost entirely destroyed. The ones middle distance just over the brow were to be next in line.

Jack