Easter newt hunt

I do not have a licence relating to GCN so to carry on with the search when I am aware of GCNs is a criminal offence.

The count was finished prematurely so the records do not count and I can never shine a torch into the pond again.

This one comes up again and again. There is no case law. The WCA is pretty clear though that intentionally 'disturbing' a Great Crested Newt is an offence.

It would be up to a magistrate to decide if shining a torch at breeding newts was an offence.

They might decide it was.

The clincher is really that one could hold a licence for 'torch' survey only, that rather makes the situation clear that it is a licensed activity. If I was called in as an expert witness I would certainly take the line that shining torches at GCN is disturbance. Plain and simple, eer because it disturbs them.

It doesn't say in the WCA you can't watch GCN in a gin clear pond on a summers day. It simply states you cannot deliberately 'disturb' them. 

My stance is that torch survey is deliberate disturbance, hence why I hold a licence to do it which makes an otherwise illegal activity legal.

Some will argue torching isn't disturbance, NE obviously think it is, else they wouldn't issue licences that specifically state this activity on the licence. 

If such a case ended up in court I'm sure the fact that NE regard torching as a licensable activity would not escape the magistrate involved.

 

I'm not criticising you, Gemma; of course people who have licenses for approved purposes shouldn't be made to feel guilty. That wasn't my intention at all. They are doing valuable work. But where does this leave the ordinary public, the non-scientists, who may be enthusiastic observers of wildlife, and who are being asked, in some cases, to accept inconvenience for the sake of these animals' protection? Usually, there is a trade-off between the needs of eco-tourism (and this is what it is, whenever anyone goes out to see lizards or snakes on a heath with no licensed scientific purpose) and those of conservation; this is clearly the case with bird-watching. It is recognised that bird-watchers have a legitimate interest, and that the ethical case for conservation is partly based on the cultural meaning that wild nature has for people. It's a pity that watching reptiles and amphibians doesn't receive the same consideration - that's a large part of the reason why birds so often take priority in land-management decisions, to the fury of many on this list. In the long run, wild nature will only be preserved if people value it, and they will only value it through having a relationship with it.

 

In your judgement, is there really any evidence that shining a torch-beam on a newt in a pond disturbs the newt in a non-trivial or damaging way? If so, does the disturbance depend on the length of time the beam is directed at the newt, and the frequency? In other words - regardless of the law, for the moment - is there a way in which interested people can watch newts effectively without causing non-trivial damage?