Natural England is throwing bat conservation under the bus (1 Viewer)

[CPBell]

Seasonal swarming is a crucial component of the annual life-cycle of temperate zone bat species, and the underground sites and built structures where it occurs can be visited by tens of thousands of individual bats, which can travel 60km or more from their home roost.

The Wildlife & Countryside Act prohibits disturbance, damage or destruction of 'places of shelter or protection' used by bats and other protected species, but Natural England insists that it doesn't apply to swarming sites, which are therefore left without any effective legal safeguards.

Under Natural England's current policy, therefore, a roost under a roof tile used by a single bat has far greater legal protection than a swarming sites that provides a crucial resource for thousands of bats, and which is critical to the health of bat populations over a vast area.

More details here: Log in to Facebook

Anyone else bothered by this?

 

[angusmcoatup]

Yes- I’ll have a read. Thanks for posting.

 

[CPBell]

I've just posted a statement from Natural England on Log in to Facebook, which sets out in detail their position on the (lack of) legal protection for bat swarming sites. Natural England are relying on this to discourage the police from prosecuting cases of disturbance.

Who needs the government to undermine protected species legislation when Natural England are already doing the job for them?

 

[CPBell]

Wow - very quiet. Not like the good old days!

 

[Ivydwg]

This is the key issue with how wildlife is protected within the UK, its more focused towards individual animal protection rather than recognising the wider importance a of species populations and ecosystems.

 

[KC Foggin]

Why not kill all the blondes in the area, or Butterflies? Why is it that there is a need to control wildlife????

 

[Farnboro John]

Wow - very quiet. Not like the good old days!

Don't do Facebook and not starting for any reason. Put the statement on here and I'll read it and comment. Without doing so, I'd be whistling in the dark, and I'm increasingly reluctant to do that.

John

 

[CPBell]

Happy to oblige (attached)

 

[Farnboro John]

I've now read it. In the specific instance under discussion - of possible disturbance within a live, in use building - I think Natural England's attitude is perfectly understandable. Buildings are put up for people and as long as they remain in use there can't be any dispute about normal usage. In any case I should think the swarming bats are quite used to the normal routine of the cathedral. If of course the ecclesiastical authorities are hoping to put a load of new lights up to be illuminated 24/7, that's a shame on all counts including destroying the cultural experience of the cathedral.

As to whether swarming sites should in certain circumstances be protected, of course they should, but that would appear to require new legislation and good luck with that with the current bunch of anti-wildlife vandals.

John

 

[CPBell]

I've now read it. In the specific instance under discussion - of possible disturbance within a live, in use building - I think Natural England's attitude is perfectly understandable. Buildings are put up for people and as long as they remain in use there can't be any dispute about normal usage. In any case I should think the swarming bats are quite used to the normal routine of the cathedral. If of course the ecclesiastical authorities are hoping to put a load of new lights up to be illuminated 24/7, that's a shame on all counts including destroying the cultural experience of the cathedral.

As to whether swarming sites should in certain circumstances be protected, of course they should, but that would appear to require new legislation and good luck with that with the current bunch of anti-wildlife vandals.

John

I think you're letting Natural England off the hook here. They want you to think there's nothing they can do in order to deflect blame onto the politicians, but the powers required have been there for over forty years.

Section 9(4)b of the Wildlife & Countryside Act says that it's an offence to disturb a protected species 'while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection'. This covers all the species in Schedule 5, which includes Otters, Red Squirrels, Walrus and Pine Marten, as well as sundry reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates, so it's very general, contrary to NE's claim in their letter that it is 'very specific'. The wording is carefully constructed to cover all contingencies in which any of the listed species occupy a location providing a refuge in which they can carry out a vital biological function, which might be a nest, a burrow, a cave or simply a location such as an island that is inaccessible to predators or competitors. Seasonal bat swarming generally occurs in buildings or caves because of the protection they provide, so disturbing swarming bats in such a site is clearly an offence under 9(4)b.

In the case of Durham Cathedral, marquees were erected in the space used for swarming and stayed in place overnight for over a week at the height of the swarming period, obstructing the bats' normal swarming flights, which otherwise occur undisturbed and unobstructed at night when the building in question is locked and empty. The attached article might make things clearer.

 

[Farnboro John]

But they aren't occupying a location, they are making use of an in-use building. Even where bats have a roost in the rafters of a stable there isn't a requirement to not stable horses in it or for humans caring for them not to come and go as and when they deem necessary. I'm sorry, you are pushing this further than it is ever going to go or was ever meant to, and as I suggested earlier, if the previous occupants of Durham Cathedral from its erection onwards wished to bowl round the cloisters in torchlight procession or hold a goose fair within its environs, they would, without further consideration: the bats and they have grown up together down the ages.

In short, if the bats wish to make use of the building during human business they can, but they can't have priority for this particular purpose. I think you are letting your own preference for outcome blind you to common sense.

As I understand it in any case bat swarming is an activity prolonged over weeks if not months in autumn and for each bat it involves multiple sites, presumably because bats are familiar with the concept of change and the necessity of fallback plans.

John

 

[CPBell]

But they aren't occupying a location, they are making use of an in-use building. Even where bats have a roost in the rafters of a stable there isn't a requirement to not stable horses in it or for humans caring for them not to come and go as and when they deem necessary. I'm sorry, you are pushing this further than it is ever going to go or was ever meant to, and as I suggested earlier, if the previous occupants of Durham Cathedral from its erection onwards wished to bowl round the cloisters in torchlight procession or hold a goose fair within its environs, they would, without further consideration: the bats and they have grown up together down the ages.

In short, if the bats wish to make use of the building during human business they can, but they can't have priority for this particular purpose. I think you are letting your own preference for outcome blind you to common sense.

As I understand it in any case bat swarming is an activity prolonged over weeks if not months in autumn and for each bat it involves multiple sites, presumably because bats are familiar with the concept of change and the necessity of fallback plans.

John

You may be surprised, but I agree with virtually everything you've said - the question is where to pitch a compromise between the interests of humans and those of wildlife. My advice to the cathedral was that there was no need to assess the normal run of activities within the cloister, which includes farmer's markets, wedding receptions, musical concerts - all manner of pandemonium - but that I would screen anything that was out of the ordinary for potential impacts on the bats. In consultant's jargon screening involves a brief assessment to determine whether a formal impact assessment is necessary. However, the first time I asked for a formal assessment to be done I was shown the door.

Now that all the data is in, it's clear that the required mitigation would have been limited to putting back the event by about 3 weeks to avoid the swarming season - no great price to stay within the law and avoid potential harm to biodiversity - but their attitude was 'tell us we can do whatever we want, or we'll find someone who will'.

There's not much data on use of multiple swarming sites. Some studies have suggested that individual bats are faithful to one site, while others have suggested that sometimes they may visit more than one. The critical issue is numbers - swarming sites can host thousands or even tens of thousands of bats over the course of a season, and individuals can travel 40, 50, 60km to visit them. Any impact will therefore affect populations inhabiting thousands of square miles of territory. On this criterion alone they require careful management backed by legal protection, which is why Natural England's stance is such an affront to decency and common sense.

 

[CPBell]

This is the key issue with how wildlife is protected within the UK, its more focused towards individual animal protection rather than recognising the wider importance a of species populations and ecosystems.

This highly relevant to anything involving the Bat Conservation Trust. They've built their empire to a large extent on the government bat advice contract, which funds the National Bat Helpline. The vast majority of calls to the helpline are requests for 'bat care' involving rehabilitation of bats found on the ground - which I did for many years until I began to think it might be counter-productive. At the cathedral we found that rehabilitated and released bats tended to become grounded again - sometimes four or five times - which suggests that it's quite likely that many or perhaps even most rehabilitated bats die 'out of sight out of mind' shortly after release. The bat care scheme therefore devolves to a feel-good exercise for the carers rather than anything benefiting bat conservation, and might simply be prolonging suffering of bats that are on the way out.

Sometimes nature is merciful - bats in a moribund condition tend to go into torpor and then simply 'die in their sleep', unless they keep being woken up by bat carers shoving mealworms in their face. One could argue that the bat care scheme is educational and good for engagement: possibly, but when bat care is prioritised over actual conservation, as seems to be the case with the Bat Conservation Trust, I think we're in diminishing returns territory.

 

[Mono]

Most animal rescue and rehabilitation work is done for humane reasons rather than any overt conservation role. Rehabiltaion is different from species level conservation which is different from habitat level conservation.