Episode 1. In the first decade of October in Ripki district (Chernyhiv region) local people picked up a wounded Osprey. The bird couldn’t fly and was given to Mensky Zoo (some information can be read here).

Episode 2. On 23 September a Lviv ornithologist A.A.Bokotey (personal communication) during bird counts at fishponds near the village Babin Serednii (Kalush district of Ivano-Frankivsk region) found remains of the Osprey, shot by hunters 3-4 weeks earlier. The bird had a ring, showing that it was marked in Finland.

Episode 3. In the first decade of October near the village Makiivka (Donetsk region) there was shot an Osprey with a Finnish ring. The bird could not fly and was given to the game-keeper who reported to the Ringing Centre. The game-keeper showed the bird to a veterinarian, and it turned out that the shot broke its radial bone. For some time the Osprey lived at the game-keeper’s house who provided it with all the necessary help, and soon he gave the bird to Kharkiv Zoo.

Episode 4. In early October we were informed about a find of a dead “eagle” with a “radar” on its back at Irdynski Bogs (Cherkasy region). According to eyewitnesses, the bird was found dead 30 September. When I received this unknown object my worst expectations were proved – hunters shot a bird of prey with a satellite transmitter. The inscription on it showed that the transmitter belongs to Finnish Museum of Natural History and Helsinki University. It was easy to recognize an Osprey, and also to find a relevant website, moreover this year I have written a review on migration of these birds across Ukraine. It turned out, that in 2011 Finnish scientists monitored two Ospreys with transmitters. It is not a hyperbole to suppose that their fortune was followed by all bird lovers in Europe since it is very interesting to sit at the computer and follow movements of the marked raptor practically online. One of the Ospreys was marked already in 2009, and scientists managed to know much information about the lifeway of this beautiful bird. In autumn 2011 it flew to the south crossing the Baltic States and Poland (more about the bird’s movements is here). The second Osprey was an adult male, named Eikka, which was captured and marked in the summer of 2011. On the 16th of September he started his travel to wintering grounds. How sad it was to read the message at the website “23 September … Eikka had flown over Kiev and proceeded over 200 kilometres to the south-southeast. 24 September – We did not receive a single fix on Eikka. 26 September – 5 October So far, we have not received any fixes on Eikka during this time” (see here for details). How could they get a signal if I hold in my hands the satellite transmitter damaged with shot, and the killed Osprey lay somewhere at Irdynski Bogs… We can only imagine the disappointment of Finnish ornithologists and bird lovers when they knew what had happened with their Osprey.

Such ingloriously were short 4 beautiful birds, grown outside the borders of Ukraine and carelessly flown into its territory during migration. And we told only about the cases which we know for one season. More than 40 years have already passed after the total ban for shooting birds of prey in Ukraine. How many years do we need more to stop killing rare birds?

Reference: The Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) according to the Red Data Book of Ukraine (Gavris, Khimin, 2009) is a vanishing species. The current numbers in Ukraine do not exceed 1-2 pairs. More birds are observed during seasonal migrations. Chiefly feeds on fish. Birds, breeding in Europe, winter predominantly in Africa.

The Osprey is one of the most favourite birds in Finland, “a country of lakes”. For these raptors they build special nest boxes, birds and all nests are under strict protection. Every year they control breeding success in all nests and ring birds to investigate their fidelity to breeding areas, life duration, and also to study their migrations and wintering.

Afterword. Maybe I exaggerate the scale of death of birds of prey from hunters? Unfortunately, no. According to Finnish ornithologists (Saurola, 2005), general numbers of Osprey, which were ringed in Finland and illegally shot in Ukraine are equal to several dozens. According to data of Ukrainian ornithologists (Shidlovsky, Lisachuk, 2007), the shooting presently remains to be the main reason of death of birds of prey in Ukraine – it comprises 57% cases of death.

The full text of this paper is available below

Shydlovskyi I., Lysachuk T. Cases of death of birds of prey in Ukraine// Bulletin of Lviv University. Series Biological. – Lviv: LNU, 2007. – Issue 45. – P. 139-147. [in Ukrainian].

Pdf-file, 0.8 kb.






Maxim Gavrilyuk

As nesting platforms we used old wicker baskets, some of which had previously been repaired. Installed baskets are substitutes for natural nests of Corvidae, readily populated by those species of birds of prey, who themselves do not build their nests. Baskets were filled with forest litter with a small admixture of soil. Installed nests were fixed with wire.

Sites for nests installation were selected in the forests near open areas, which are most preferred habitats of Long-eared Owls and two species of small falcons: Hobby Falcon and Kestrel. To do this, we also have mounted nests in the Desna floodplain. For successful occupation of baskets by small falcons we placed them in the top of the crown, for Long-eared Owls location of a nest on the tree was unprincipled.
In future, to attract birds of prey in the park, we plan to increase the number of installed artificial nests for both diurnal and nocturnal raptors.

Sergey Domashevsky

EXPERIENCE OF ATTRACTION OF TAWNY OWLS TO ARTIFICIAL NESTS IN KHARKIV REGION

Attraction of some species for breeding often allows to increase their numbers. These actions can be performed by everyone for bird conservation. In addition, it is a unique opportunity to monitor populations of nocturnal species. Ukraine still has gained quite a small experience in the attraction of the Tawny Owls for breeding. That is exactly the reason why we introduce this material.

In the late 1970s – early 1980s, students of the biological faculty of Kharkiv University organized year-round observations at the biological station in Haidary Village. They were engaged in bird ringing, hung log houses and studied the biology of different species of flycatchers; manufactured and installed nest boxes for the Tawny Owl. By 1979 the number of the latter reached 55. They were of different designs – like boarded birdhouses and those hollowed out of logs. Although at that time in the upland oak-grove of Homolsha Forests there were enough trees with natural cavities, owls occupied nest boxes with a fair success. Works on the attraction of the Tawny Owl and study of their ecology at that time were led by Ihor Prisada.

Since then, more than 20 years passed. Homolsha Forests over the past few years have changed dramatically. Almost all hollow trees were eliminated. It remains a young oak-grove with very few sites for breeding of owls. As a result, the population of the Tawny Owl started declining. We set out to return lost nesting sites to these birds.
First steps in this direction have been undertaken by us in 1999 in a site of Polianska Forest Cottage. From the rotten-hearted logs left by foresters in areas of sanitary cuttings, we made 5 artificial nests – cut an entrance, nailed a bottom and lid, and put up this constructions (weighing at least 30 kg) in a fork of a tree. Futher observations showed that birds used these nest boxes only for day roosts. Perhaps the reason was in a wrong placement of the artificial nest or maybe the design was wrong.
Next year, we got down to the case more seriously. Throughout the winter we were looking for remained nest boxes using the old maps (kindly given us by Sergey Gashchak, a graduator of the biological faculty of Kharkiv University); of 55 nests we managed to find 9 and 6 of them were still suitable for occupying them by owls! At the same time we were looking for the sites suitable for the installation of new nest boxes (not far from glades and open woodlands – favorite hunting sites of Tawny Owls), and also conducted counts of owls. Thus, we compiled our own scheme of sites to install nest boxes (Vlashchenko et al. 2001).
In 2001, of great assistance to us, in manufacturing artificial nests, was a regional association “Kharkivlis” and his chief forester, D.A. Ovcharenko. Were constructed 55 wooden nest boxes with the design resembling a birdhouse. Dimensions of nest boxes for Tawny Owls can vary widely. The height is from 35-40 to 80-90 cm, the internal size of the bottom – 30 x 30 cm, sometimes more. The entrance diameter – from 12-14 to 20 cm (Grishchenko 1997). One should remember that the Tawny Owls do not build their own nests, so as litter in the boxes we put some sawdust or dry leaves.
We treated nests the whole summer – reinforced them with tin clips, soaked from the outside with a mixture of diesel fuel and resin – for durability, additionally stitched with wire.
Autumn came. For the Tawny Owl it began a period of settlement of juveniles and formation of pairs. We had to hurry to have all owl houses hung by the winter and be able to get the first results of our work in spring. Now it was the most difficult stage – actual hanging of nests. Lacking of suitable transport, nest boxes spread through the forest “by hand” – on our own shoulders. After ten kilometers of rugged terrain with a pair of boxes on one’s back (about 20 kg) to climb up a tree, nearly devoid of branches at the 10-meter height without a ladder, and then pull up and install the 10-kg nest box is not an easy job. Sometimes a nest box detached and flew down, and we had to do everything again. Averagely we mounted 5 owl houses a day; along with to each nest we filled out forms, indicating geographic coordinates (determined with the help of GPS-navigator) and describing types of vegetation.
Along the way, new ideas originated, hanging technology for owl houses was improved. Thus, it was an original design of the rope ladder, a way of transportation of nest boxes, and safety technique when working at height.

Works to attract the Tawny Owls were funded by the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Ukraine. We would like to say special thanks for taking an active part in preparing and hanging nests to Pavel Vlashchenko, Anton Mariushchenko, Sergey Chernyh, Roman Krasovsky, Gennady Goncharov.
As a result of inspections in 2002 (in March, May, July, October, November), it turned out that 10 owl houses, installed in February, were not used by owls during the breeding season. When checking in March 2002, owls or signs of their presence (pellets, feathers) were observed in 16 owl houses, and in 3 of them the breeding was registered. Occupation of nest boxes continued during the year, and by mid-February 2003, owls or traces of their presence were observed in 24 owl houses. It was discovered that owls prefer open areas: glades and clearings or forest edges. Thus, 20 used owl houses were within 300 m from the open areas, and only 4 were located at greater distances. The most readily occupied were nest boxes installed at a distance of 15-30 m from the forest edges: 80% (n = 5) of nest boxes installed in this interval, were occupied. Occupation of the nest boxes, located directly on the edges and at a distance of more than 30 m from the edge of the forest was lower – 50% (n = 28). There wasn’t found any relationship between index of occupancy and the orientation of the entrance in accordance with cardinal points or the height of the placement of the nest. The installation of nests, depending on landscape characteristics of the area, was as follows: in plain ‘plakor’ areas in a forest-steppe watershed landscape it was hung 30 nests (11 inhabited); on forested slopes of gullies in a gently undulating terrain of the forest-steppe watershed landscape it was set 10 nests and 5 were inhabited, in sites of flat gully bottoms of the same type of terrain there were installed 5 and 3 were occupied. In steep slopes in a sloping terrain of a steppe valley landscape of the right bank of the Severskyi Donets River it was installed 8 nests, of which 5 were inhabited (Yatsiuk, Biatov, 2003). Now monitoring of the Tawny Owl population is conducted by an employee of the National Park “Homolsha Forests ” E.A. Yatsiuk.

Vlashchenko, A., Biatov, A., Yatsiuk, E. 2001. “Owl-2000”. Continuation of the Action. In: Ptah. 2001. Issue 4. [in Russian]

Grishchenko, V.N. 1997. Biotechnical measures on conservation of rare bird species. Chernovtsy, 143 p. [in Russian]

Yatsiuk, E.A., Biatov, A.P. 2003. Attraction of the Tawny Owl (Strix aluco L.) in artificial nests in Kharkiv region: preliminary results of the project “Ark for Owls”. In: Birds of the Seversky Donetsk River Basin. Proceedings of the 7-1oth conference “Study and conservation of birds of prey of the Seversky Donets”. Kharkov, 2003. Issue 8. P. 110-112. [in Russian]

Tatyana Atemasova, project leader.

In our practice there was a case where the marten killed on the nest a large chick of the Short-toed Eagle in the age of 6-7 weeks. Therefore, in Chernihiv region in the Regional Landscape Park “Mezhrechenskii” there have been taken measures to protect two trees for one nesting pair of the Short-toed Eagles from attacks of the marten. It is the pair of raptors which lost their chick in 2008. In addition, during regular felling in breeding territory, the certain kind of nesting trees should be specially protected from terrestrial predators: the nesting trees which are easily accessible but selected by the Short-toed Eagle in the areas unsuitable for cutting forest. In this way we increase the probability of the annual use of these trees by birds, thereby reducing human disturbance on reproductive success.
Installing protection against terrestrial predators is also justified in cases of special studies related to the need to visit occupied nests of birds of prey (Galushin, Kostin 2008).

Such activities should be carried out before the birds return from wintering grounds. In species that winter in the breeding area, the protection must be installed in the early winter period. For such species the installation works should take place in the fast mode in order to reduce time spending at the nests.
For the protection of nesting trees, we used a galvanized iron sheet 0.5 mm thick. The length of such a sheet depends on the diameter of a tree trunk. The sheet must overlap the trunk. To protect sufficiently it is enough for the sheet to be 1 m high and locate on the trunk at the height at least 1 m from the ground. On fixing the sheet with nails (the nails used should be 100 mm long or a bit shorter) to the trunk of a tree, wipe it dry with a cloth (if the sheet is wet, for example, because of rain or condensation). Then make prime coating of the sheet using a spray can. This allows the paint which will be on top to hold up well.
When painting galvanized surfaces there are recommended to use 2 types of prime coating: first acid, then the ordinary, or only the ordinary but pre-treating the surface with coarse-grained abrasive. Imitating the color of a tree trunk, apply upper layers of automobile enamel (dark-grey, dark-beige, khaki). Masking the sheet we reduce chances of its accidental discovery by a stranger. The vertical arrangement of the sheet makes it more visible to people. The second option of protection in the form of a collar-umbrella is more visible to hosts of the nest. In our case the nests were located relatively low (up to 15 m from the ground), so we have chosen the first option.
The sheet mounted on the trunk of a tree is a reliable protection of birds’ nests from the encroachments of martens. It is also very important for the branches of the tree protected from predatory animals not to touch each other and be remote from the branches of neighboring trees, because martens are excellent tree-creepers and virtuosic jumpers at high heights.
And, in conclusion I would like to thank Vladimir Galushin for his consultations on this topic.

Konstantin Pismenny, Sergey Domashevsky, Roman Vatrasevich

Galushin, V. M., Kostin, A. B. 2008. Birds of prey and tolerant ornithology. 86−90. In: Latest studies on Birds of Prey and Owls. Proceedings of the 3d International Scientific Conference “Birds of Prey of Ukraine”, Kryvyi Rih, 24-25 October 2008. (eds. M.N.Gavrilyuk, G.V. Fesenko). – Kryvyi Rih, pp. 86-90. [in Russian]

«Blank spots», and as a result, the most designing issues in the present status of Ukrainian birds of prey are:

• Species breeding:
− Osprey (Pandion haliaetus);
− Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus);
− Spotted Eagle (Aquila clanga);
− Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos);
− Lesser Kestrel (Falco naumanni).

• Reliable data about accidental flights:
− Red Kite (Milvus milvus),
− Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus);
− Snowy Owl (Nyctea scandiaca);
− Hawk Owl (Surnia ulula).

It is also still unknown if the following wintering species are resident or not: long-legged Buzzard, Buzzard, Imperial Eagle, Saker, Kestrel, Long-eared Owl and others.
The material, presented by us, is based on the data for the last decade. It shows nowadays status of raptors.

More details concerning to particular regions of Ukraine can be found in the attached file.

Vetrov V.V., Gavrilyuk M.N., Domashevsky S.V., Milobog Yu.V, with some consultations of Prokopenko S.P.

Compilers will be grateful for any information, specifying data on Ukrainian birds of prey status presented in the table, especially if it concerns particular regions. Everyone having such data is requested to send them by e-mail info@raptors.org.ua or by direct authors’ e-mails .