A dead bird is a dead bird...

Sir – Wind farms obviously ruffle more feathers than just those found on birds!

The reply from Lesley Cranna to the points raised in my letter (NT, 15th July) concedes that bird casualties from wind farms are acceptable "provided the regional population of a species can be sustained".

What happens if the population is very small, where the loss of just one single bird might endanger the viability of the "regional population"?

To many people the only difference between bird casualties from wildlife crime or collision with a wind turbine is the legal interpretation. Whether a bird is lost through deliberate poisoning or the deliberate construction of a wind turbine, the result is the same.

Most people now understand wind farms have a massive footprint and provide little energy over a full year, particularly when it is needed most.

The subsidy paid by the consumer for this "green energy" is, unfortunately, eye watering.

In many areas the cumulative impact of wind farms has become a real threat to the natural environment.

There is a need to protect our threatened species and habitats in the present as well as the future; after

all, our natural heritage is

"our greatest economic asset".

It is convenient for SNH to hide behind partnerships, steering groups, reports and strategic plans. As a statutory consultee to the Scottish Government, it is essential that SNH, too, stands up for what is valuable and worth protecting.

The record so far suggests that it has the necessary tools but lacks the will to do so.

– Peter Daniels, The Old Manse, Loth.