the online meeting place for all who love our amphibians and reptiles |
|
Declining number of Great Crested Newts |
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Author | ||
GemmaJF
Admin Group Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I think it is a good point there may be a need for mitigation at site level and the current regulations/laws cater well for that. I think though Will and I both have the same view, it is about 'bang for your buck' which Americans are keen on saying. The current situation is that things are done to comply with regulations but is it the best use of the money and could the wording of the current laws/regulations be changed?
I've run projects in excess of 150K to meet current regulations and protect animals. Just think what could have been done with that money if we hadn't spent 70K on fencing and a lot of the rest on paying workers to capture and move the animals and only a small percentage of the total cost on creating new habitat to compensate what was lost to the development. A huge amount of that money in my opinion was wasted with no real long term benefit for the animals to dare I say it 'jump hoops' that were put in our way. We could have done way way more in terms of habitat creation with quarter off that budget and probably been able to put in green corridors right through the surrounding area with numerous ponds, new hedgerows which would have benefited a huge range of wildlife, and created long term connectivity to several adjacent sites. As it is it's all about protecting clients from prosecution by meeting the wording of the current legislation - I just wonder if it is the most effective strategy for the long term conservation of wildlife. I'm also all for people using the countryside a lot more. Around here I'm surrounded by open arable fields, more space than anyone could want, yet hardly anyone local is allowed to use it any way. It would be great to see that broken up with green corridors paid for by development money which could also include facilities for people as well as wildlife. I think the majority of people have totally lost touch with nature and without providing a link for them back to it, our cause is a difficult one at the best of times.
Edited by GemmaJF - 07 Nov 2012 at 1:52am |
||
will
Senior Member Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1830 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes, I would agree with Gemma re bang for your buck. I am not advocating a sledgehammer approach, but rather a broad brush one. Small populations are certainly valuable especially if isolated and the only ones for some distance (as we often have in London, for example). However I think it is time for a review of the way that individual animals are often more highly valued by the Law than populations, given that the original rationale for protection under the W and C Act was often to protect species where there were genuinely only a handful of individuals in the UK (eagles, ospreys etc) - not so applicable to small animals lower down the food chain like GCN. I certainly would not like a developer to use digging a couple of ponds to offset loss of animals on site as an easy way out, but on the other hand, as Gemma says, think what could be done with 70Ks worth of exclusion fencing spent on habitat creation and management to enhance the local and even regional status of GCN...
|
||
Caleb
Senior Member Joined: 11 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 660 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The one quoted in the book is here: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_BiodivUKSGRep-Vol2-Tranche1-Annfg.pdf It's from the very beginning of the UK BAP (1995), and it says: "Work in the early 1980s documented a 2% decline in the number of ponds every five years. A more recent report suggests that 42% of great crested newt populations in the London area have been lost in 20 years. Assuming a 0.4-2% annual loss of ponds, and assuming 18,000 populations, then between 72-360 populations are being lost each year. A target of 100 re-colonisations will offset these losses. This represents new ponds required to offset losses due to neglect and should be in addition to preventing site loss through development." So have we had an extra 100 GCN ponds every year since 1995? (Incidentally, a decline of 2% per year doesn't mean extinction in 50 years, as it's multiplied year on year by the number of ponds you have remaining. From 18000 to 0 at 2% works out to 484 years if my maths is correct.) |
||
Matt Harris
Senior Member Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It's not the law that needs to be changed - the Habs Directive and subsequently the Conservation Regulations are sufficiently strong - it's their interpretation by SNCOs that need to alter. When it comes to article 16 derogations, the maintenance of populations of things like GCNs at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, should be able to be achieved in a strategic way with developer contributions, rather than relying purely on site-by-site mitigation. |
||
Local Authority Ecologist
|
||
Noodles
Senior Member Joined: 05 Dec 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 534 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
This 2% loss every five years is the standard rate of decline cited in many biodiversity action plans for GCN.
However, i'm sure the rate of decline mentioned in the book is based on a different study. I may be wrong, its been a while since i read it, but when i have the time, or if anyone else remembers, i'll post the passage verbatim. P.S. Caleb, thanks for the Muellner paper by the way
|
||
Matt Harris
Senior Member Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
As above, the Directive speaks of mainenance of FCS of populations in the neatural range. Granted, this wouldn't be as simple as digging a few ponds elswhere and hoping for the best, but equally I don't see why, in law, contributions to a strategic scheme, which if successful would demonstrably enhance the FCS of the species as a whole, is not possible. I don't agree that the plural 'populations' in the text of article 16 refers to individual ponds; maybe there's been a ruling on this, I don't know. I can see that if a population is part of a strategic link through some sort of ecological bottleneck, then it would have to be preserved in situ. But equally, I can think of any number of ponds which are totally isolated and not contributing to any metpopulation or wider population, and probably never will. Should these populations be in some sort of managed decline, whilst contribution from developers which would otherwise be spent on mitigation at that site could instead be used to manage and enhance the strategically important populations? To counter this the 'Countryside on your doorstep' argument is used, whereby people are entitled to see the fragments of semi-natural habitat, and the species that they support, at the end of their street preserved for their enjoyment, inspiration, education etc, rather than lost to development subject to compensatory habitats provided potentially many miles from where they live. |
||
Local Authority Ecologist
|
||
Matt Harris
Senior Member Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Maybe a topic for a separate discusion, but I guess this depends upon what is the overriding constraint on the population size, whether it be the availability of suitable breeding habitat in the pond, or of whatever function the land provides, such as hidey-holes or food. Clearly there has to be some relationship between availability of terrestrial habitat and population size, because, as above, no land = no newts. But equally, as the availability of terrestrial habitat increases, maybe a point is reached at which there are so many creepy-crawlies, worms, things to hide under etc that there are far too many that all the newts could ever need, and instead population expansion is constrained by other factors such as availability of breeding habitat, abundance of predators etc. Is it known at what area of terrestrial habitat, compared to pond size, this point is reached? Personally I would always welcome the construction of additional ponds, but equally would not accept substantial loss of terrestrial habitat. This being the case it would be helpful if I had an idea of, assuming the breeding habitat was optimal, what then would be a minimal area of terrestrial habitat that has to be preserved? |
||
Local Authority Ecologist
|
||
Noodles
Senior Member Joined: 05 Dec 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 534 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
[/QUOTE] Is it known at what area of terrestrial habitat, compared to pond size, this point is reached? [/QUOTE] Presumably that would depend on the quality and type of habitat. From the GCN conservation handbook: "Great crested newt densities have been measured at a range of sites. They have rarely been found to exceed 400 adult newts per hectare, but 100-300 per hectare is perhaps more typical. A small pond may need at least half a hectare of suitable habitat around it to support a viable population of great crested newts. Newt numbers may be greatly reduced and the population left vulnerable to local extinction when the amount of land habitat is too small or when connections to other ponds are lost. The ratio of water to good quality land habitat for optimum newt numbers is not known, but a 1:20 ratio may not be excessive. On this basis, a pond with a 20 metre span will be supported by a little over one hectare of good quality land habitat. A ten hectare habitat creation area might support between five and ten ponds of such a size." |
||
GemmaJF
Admin Group Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
How does that sit with the wording of the WCA? Is it not a case that GCN are specifically protected as individual animals? I know in my own experience and with many other consultants the reason we are being paid by developers is to protect them from prosecution under that act. This almost invariably will involve fencing and capture to achieve this to a reasonable level. Most other legislation is looked at as additional consideration the project will invariably primarily be aimed at protecting the client from prosecution and in practice anything else depends how persuasive and inventive the consultant involved is. Edited by GemmaJF - 07 Nov 2012 at 2:46pm |
||
Matt Harris
Senior Member Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I think that's the point in that the legislation pertaining to these species is too focused on preserving the life of the individual animal rather than the function of the species as a whole in the ecosystem. Hence we see the headlines of £XK per newt/dormouse etc, that do no-one any good None of us like to see animals get hurt but these are meant to be species conservation regulations not animal welfare regulations. Preserving the life of the individual is not necessarily the most efficient way of maintaining a species, in terms of point of focus of conservation efforts, no matter how unpalatable that may be. I don't know, would private ecological consultants prefer to be involved in creative, wider ecosystem management schemes, than bucketing herps from one site to another? |
||
Local Authority Ecologist
|
||
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |