Easter newt hunt

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 4:15pm

Thank you very much. That's encouraging.

Dave1812

Senior Member

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 67

Post Options

Quote Dave1812

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 04 May 2011 at 6:39am

You could ask ARC for training to be a monitor for NARRS project and then you would be covered under ARCs licence, be able to use your light and help with data of our amphibians.

David Hind

D&G ARG
ARC - Natterjack Toad Monitor

Richard2

Senior Member

Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 285

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 04 May 2011 at 10:13am

Thanks, David. That's an interesting idea; it appeals to me and I may well follow it up. But I don't want the larger point to get lost. If these severe interpretations of the legislation are correct, then in order to enjoy the experience of watching these animals, one has to be a member of an organisation or someone committed to organised research. Watching them by torchlight is generally the only effective way of watching their spectacular breeding display. Admittedly, the position is made to seem a little less daunting by Gemma's suggestion that all one need do to qualify for a license is keep one's own records and send them on the renewal form. But still, it means one has to go through quite a complicated bureaucratic procedure just to be able to switch on a torch, and most people aren't going to be motivated to do that. It precludes the spontaneous encounter (or relatively spontaneous). If one believes, as I do, that a our native wildlife is an important part of our common heritage, and good for us in emotional and moral terms, then one has to see this inaccessibility as a problem. It isn't a problem that is the fault of anyone here, but we can have views about it, and perhaps it's worth making those views heard more widely.

GemmaJF

Admin Group

Joined: 25 Jan 2003
Location: Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 4359

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 04 May 2011 at 9:50pm

Richard2 wrote:

Thanks, David. That's an interesting idea; it appeals to me and I may well follow it up. But I don't want the larger point to get lost. If these severe interpretations of the legislation are correct, then in order to enjoy the experience of watching these animals, one has to be a member of an organisation or someone committed to organised research. Watching them by torchlight is generally the only effective way of watching their spectacular breeding display. Admittedly, the position is made to seem a little less daunting by Gemma's suggestion that all one need do to qualify for a license is keep one's own records and send them on the renewal form. But still, it means one has to go through quite a complicated bureaucratic procedure just to be able to switch on a torch, and most people aren't going to be motivated to do that. It precludes the spontaneous encounter (or relatively spontaneous). If one believes, as I do, that a our native wildlife is an important part of our common heritage, and good for us in emotional and moral terms, then one has to see this inaccessibility as a problem. It isn't a problem that is the fault of anyone here, but we can have views about it, and perhaps it's worth making those views heard more widely.

I think very much if one considers wildlife as common heritage, it is important to protect it when required. Unfortunately lesser interpretations tend to leave lots of loopholes. If torching is OK, what next? It's bad enough keeping developers inline with the existing legislation as it is. My contribution is to illustrate how the legislation 'could' be interpreted, we also have your input from NE that it 'depends'.

I would have to then ask the question that if one went with a torch to a known GCN pond, until the moment one points the torch at the pond and starts looking, how could one know what behaviour one might 'disturb'? Therefore it seems likely an offence could easily be committed.

It's not a perfect system at all, but it is all we have. I'm afraid if as you say most people are not motivated enough to want to stay on the right side of the WCA, then it is perhaps best for most people to leave wildlife afforded full protection under the act well alone. It's a circular argument and nothing at all stops anyone as an individual applying for a GCN licence, finding the required two referees and spending the rest of their life in the knowledge they can legally observe, disturb and handle GCN.

It's not as if I don't accept the same restrictions myself regarding bats, badger, smooth snakes, natterjack toads, sand lizards and other speices... I seem to be able to live with that without feeling the need to change the way the law is.

GemmaJF

Admin Group

Joined: 25 Jan 2003
Location: Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 4359

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 04 May 2011 at 10:07pm

Just in addition Richard and going back a bit in the thread:

dis·turb

tr.v. dis·turbed, dis·turb·ing, dis·turbs

1. To break up or destroy the tranquillity or settled state of: "Subterranean fires and deep unrest disturb the whole area" (Rachel Carson).

2. To trouble emotionally or mentally; upset.

a. To interfere with; interrupt: noise that disturbed my sleep.

b. To intrude on; inconvenience: Constant calls disturbed her work.

4. To put out of order; disarrange.

You'll find that handling or physically disturbing an animal is referred to as 'TAKE' in the WCA

take

v. took (tk), tak·en (tkn), tak·ing, takes

v.tr.

1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:

a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.

b. To seize with authority; confiscate.

c. To kill, snare, or trap (fish or game, for example).

Judges and magistrates do just that, they look at the dictionary meaning, they look at what the legislation 'meant' and make a decision. Clearly 'disturb' could easily include anything that makes an animal change its behaviour. Like shining a torch at it for example. Geek

Edited by GemmaJF - 04 May 2011 at 10:11pm

Richard2

Senior Member

Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 285

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 04 May 2011 at 11:21pm

I understand these definitions. I suppose it's possible, then, that the application of the law might depend on an interpretation of 'change its behaviour'. Does that mean prompting the animal to move a few inches away from where it was when the beam was switched on, which might alternatively be described as a normal behavioural response to a minor obstruction, or does it mean causing it to do something that is a clear departure from normal behaviour, such as ceasing its breeding activity for more than a minute or two? Who is to say, until there's a test case? NE, I guess.

But I don't think we're arguing about how to interpret the law any more. For myself, I'm content to follow the instructions you and David have given, unless NE advises me that I don't need to. My concern is with the balance between two principles - the need to protect animals from physical harm and species endangerment, and the need to preserve for the general public the possibility of experiencing its native wildlife. If I understand you rightly, Gemma, you believe that the former consideration is so paramount that we should apply the precautionary principle to the maximum, even at the expense of restricting the sight of these creatures to a few highly-motivated enthusiasts. I too want effective protection, but I am not indifferent to the other principle, and I think the long term protection of such animals is only likely if the public develops an appreciation of them, which it can't if it never sees them. I want to encourage the love of wild nature. Therefore I want as much accessibility as is compatible with effective protection (I'm not sure how a rule permitting torchlight watching would weaken the laws restraining developers). That's the difference between us.

GemmaJF

Admin Group

Joined: 25 Jan 2003
Location: Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 4359

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 05 May 2011 at 12:07am

Richard2 wrote:

If I understand you rightly, Gemma, you believe that the former consideration is so paramount that we should apply the precautionary principle to the maximum, even at the expense of restricting the sight of these creatures to a few highly-motivated enthusiasts. I too want effective protection, but I am not indifferent to the other principle, and I think the long term protection of such animals is only likely if the public develops an appreciation of them, which it can't if it never sees them. I want to encourage the love of wild nature. Therefore I want as much accessibility as is compatible with effective protection (I'm not sure how a rule permitting torchlight watching would weaken the laws restraining developers). That's the difference between us.

If torch survey of GCN was not a licensed activity, then anybody could carryout a survey for a developer.

There is nothing to it you point a torch at the pond, count the animals, done.

So when do you do the survey?

How many visits?

What temperature range should it be carried out in?

Were they actually GCN?

You see if one is not motivated enough to gain a licence, who could tell if one were motivated enough to actually read the GCN mitigation guidelines or any other publication, or indeed if one had any field experience at all.

You might think this laughable, but it is almost exactly the situation we currently have with the widespread reptiles. The survey standard is frankly all too often appalling. Kids just out of university with zero field experience going through the motions with very little chance of recording anything at all.

I really would not like that to happen with GCN or any of the other fully protected species.

I have trouble you are correct in the concept that you somehow should have a born right to access to wildlife afforded full protection under the WCA.

I enjoy watching smooth newts in my garden pond, I enjoy the lizards and snakes that live there too.

To observe GCN generally for me (and for most people) means a night visit to larger ponds in the wider countryside. I hardly see how this activity is particularly accessible to the public in any case considering that permissions are required from land owners, few people are actually comfortable in the field at night without training etc.

So the argument that in someway the legislation restricts your access to the animals is difficult to follow. Getting a GCN licence is nothing at all compared to actually being motivated enough to go out and find the animals at night, often miles from anywhere.

I've a feeling this is all an argument about principle. I dont' much care for that, I simply work with the given legislation.

If you want to call 'watching' by torch light something other than disturbance, it is entirely up to you Richard.

Richard2

Senior Member

Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 285

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 05 May 2011 at 10:28am

Gemma,

Yes, we are arguing about principles. I think principles matter; it is out of such arguments, often conducted over years, that campaigns and legislation develop. The fundamental question is, why should wildlife be protected in any case. We shouldn't take the answer for granted. People ask the question all the time, and insofar as there is a consensus in favour of protection, it is the result of public culture - TV documentaries, books and magazines, the activities of enthusiasts in local societies and so forth. It needs constant maintenance. As we've seen with the recent proposal about forests, the principle of protection is constantly under attack.

Your points here are interesting. I would have no objection at all to a legal requirement that surveys cited as evidence in relation to development proposals could only be carried out by licensed experts under strict conditions. These surveys should be treated quite differently from recreational wildlife-watching. And, while it's certainly true that Great Crested Newts are harder to find than other newts, I don't think physical access is as hard as you suggest. I know of several ponds on nature reserves open to the public, several in small private gardens, and two or three bordering roads or public land so that torchlight watching from public ground would be possible. That's just my limited and haphazard knowledge as a private enthusiast.

Some nature reserves advertise the presence of these animals with pictures on information boards. BBC Wildlife Magazine this month features them as one of the exciting things to see at this time of year. All this implies that the public has a chance to watch them, and that there is some desire to do so.

GemmaJF

Admin Group

Joined: 25 Jan 2003
Location: Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 4359

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 05 May 2011 at 12:09pm

The difference between us actually Richard, is that I argue for the animals, you argue for yourself.

We'll never agree.

You could I suppose start a campaign for a 'recreational permit', why though when there is a perfectly good licence system already in place.

Richard2

Senior Member

Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 285

Post Options