Lee Brady's Recording Blog

Big Profit from Nature Protection

Money invested in protecting nature can bring huge financial returns, according to a major investigation into the costs and benefits of the natural world.

via news.bbc.co.uk

I would also add, that whilst taking the environment into consideration brings financial rewards (along with other less tangible gains), NOT taking the environment into consideration can prove very costly.

Michael Howard to Fight Nuclear Decision

Dungeness was rejected because of worries about the threat to the local eco-system from coastal erosion and flooding should a new plant be constructed there.

The decision will now be subject to a 15-week consultation.

Mr Howard, whose Folkestone and Hythe constituency includes the Romney Marsh, accused the government of letting environmental considerations outweigh the need to protect local jobs.

via news.bbc.co.uk

I don't suppose Mr. Howard will be around when climate change results in the power station being swamped by rising sea levels. It genuinely frightens me that many politicians simply don't understand that issues relating to the environment require a long-term outlook. Spouting rhetoric to win a few votes is about all some of them can achieve. Perhaps Mr. Howard wants to convince his constituents that the £17,351 he recently claimed for 'gardening' was money well spent. 

A New Dawn for Herpetofauna Conservation?

The Herpetological Conservation Trust and Froglife will soon be no more... 

Froglife lost its relevance to grass roots amphibian and reptile conservation several years ago. For reasons that elude me, the organisation has managed to retain its media following and is still frequently consulted on various issues by journalists working for various publications. In essence, Froglife became little more than a brand. In my opinion it was a brand with little substance, but a successful brand none the less. 

To the public, The Herpetological Conservation Trust is an almost unknown entity. It consists of knowledgeable and experienced herpetologists who just put their collective heads down and get on with things. HCT are one of the lead partners on herpetofauna biodiversity action plans and play an important role lobbying government both nationally and internationally. Unfortunately they tend to do this without widely communicating their work in any meaningful way. The result is an organisation that is eminently qualified to advise on various conservation matters, but one that is largely unknown to the public. 

Since Froglife and HCT clearly have complementary qualities their respective trustees have decided that merging the two organisations into a new unified body will better serve herpetofauna conservation. The new organisation will retain most if not all existing staff and go by the snappy name of Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust. This will inevitably be shortened to ARCT. The first public appearance takes place this week at the Hampton Court Palace Flower Show, where they will be promoting Dragon Gardens. More on that in another post. 

I consider that merging the two organisations is the right thing to do. I'm not sure about the name though. They should have retained the Froglife branding. I'm also less than thrilled by some aspects of their internal structure. Despite rumours that ARCT will launch a 'friends' scheme, the new trust will not be a democratic membership organisation. ARCT Friends will not be members of the organisation, just financial supporters. I'm not a great fan of this approach and it really smells of the old Froglife. 

These concerns aside, I really do hope that the new organisation will be successful in re-energising herpetofauna conservation and not become just a new facade on two tired old faces. Time will tell.  

£1.5 Million Flood Defence Scheme Delayed by Reptiles... Again!!

Or is it?

A local media outlet has today claimed that a major flood defence scheme has been delayed by a grass snake, 10 slow-worms and a lizard. 

According to the Mid Sussex Times:

"The reptiles are hibernating on the banks of the Ouse close to Lewes Rowing Club"

The newspaper then reports that according to their information source (which is apparently the Rowing Club's newsletter):

"They were discovered too late to catch them before they went into winter hibernation"

An obvious question which springs to mind is, if the reptiles haven't yet been captured how on earth does anyone know how many animals actually occupy the site? Presumably a thorough population assessment has been undertaken using methodologies that control for temporal and spatial distribution (to take into account variation in densities between summer foraging and winter hibernation) and low detectability (to control for the difficulty in actually finding the critters). No? Thought not. 

Rather intriguingly, the Environment Agency (EA) apparently blame initial delays to the scheme on poor survey work by ecological consultants who concluded that the site was not likely to support any reptiles. My advice to anyone paying for survey work is to check the credentials of the company and/or individual undertaking the work. Many consultancies hide behind a faceless company facade. What a potential developer needs to know is who is actually doing the work and what is their expertise? 

Later in the same article an unnamed EA spokesperson is quoted as saying:

"... the delay of the scheme was not entirely due to the hibernating reptiles..."

Not only that, but it also transpires:

"... planning permission for the project was not granted until January and the EA had to satisfy a number of conditions made by Lewes District Council."

So a better headline might read:

£1.5 Million Lewes Flood Defence Scheme Delayed by Poor Project Management and Crap Consultants. 

Let's not blame the wildlife, again.... 

'Cutting Edge' Documentary

Most regular visitors are probably well aware of my distrust of the media. Like many conservationists I groan inwardly every time a serious issue is reported at a level that even my nine year old daughter finds absurd. Frankly, the poor level of understanding and reporting of science (including conservation) that percolates through the current establishment is shocking. Of course none of this cynicism is driven by the fact that one of my appearances on local television to talk about adder conservation was scuppered by the appearance of a baby elephant at Howlett's...! 

Seriously though. On occasion things land in my inbox that I don't know whether I should laugh or cry about. Take the following email I received from a 'researcher' for a TV production company (the email appeared to be sent to a number of ecological consultants):

"I am a researcher from an independent TV  production company called Rapid Broadcast.

We have been commissioned to make a 'Cutting Edge' documentary for Channel 4 that follows the process when protected species such as bats, great crested newts , badgers and even dormice and building/development/renovation projects meet.

We feel that many people don't know that an ecological survey can often be an essential part of the process for getting your planning approved and that looking out for the well being of any inhabitats that may be on your property is your responsibility and must be taken seriously.

For our documentary we are hoping to follow, about 8 different stories of build projects and protected species. One badger, a few bat stories, a newt story and who knows what else may pop up. Some stories we will capture from the beginning so we can follow some of the survey work so viewers can see how it all happens.  Other stories we will pick up part of the way through and some at their conclusion.

We are hoping to do our first bit of filming in March and follow through to about August. We need to hand our project in to Channel 4 in November. It’s all very exciting!

We are looking for stories that could be a part of the documentary and are wondering if you may be able to help. We are looking for interesting stories and people. nWe are open to all suggestions, we would just like to hear your stories.

If you think you or any of your projects or clients be it homeowners,developers or even community groups may fit the bill please let me know."

 

Well that sounds quite reasonable. A TV programme that will outline the issues concerning the need for development based ecological survey work. As a professional consultant, I am often frustrated that my clients do not realise that they cannot simply drive onto a site and start to clear it without first establishing how important the site may be for biodiversity. 

Unfortunately for this particular researcher, I have Google Alerts set up. These email alerts notify me when certain topics that are of interest pop up somewhere on the web. It appears that Rapid Broadcast have also been in touch with organisations that represent property developers. The following request was published by The Rat and Mouse: 

"We are looking for people in the process of a building/renovation project who have discovered they may have a protected species such as a bat, great crested newt, badger, bird or red squirrel on their site. This may mean their plans for the project have to change or could be delayed. Is this you? How has this made you feel? Are you in a state of shock? Are you concerned about the extra costs and delays? Are you worried this may stretch your budget a little too far? Or are you just flaming mad that you are being told what to do on your own personal property? If so we would love to hear from you."

So do you think the programme will be informative, educational and useful? Or will it simply be Big Brother in the garden, pitting some hapless newt boy against a credit crunch stricken property developer who will have to sack umpteen lads due to the presence of bats in the roof? 

Call me cynical, but never assume I'm a fool. 

Venomous vs Poisonous

A small bugbear of mine is when the term poisonous is used to describe an animal that is actually venomous. The latest media outlet guilty of this heinous crime is (you guessed it) the BBC. 

The BBC have reported on the Paul O'Grady story but have apparently not actually researched the news item themselves, they have instead simply quoted the Daily Mirror. Although the Mirror's headline 'I adder lucky escape' is the typical nonsense you would expect, the actual article is reasonably fair and I think Paul should be given credit for the matter of fact manner in which he has dealt with the incident. His spokeswoman is quoted as saying:

"He was a bit shaken as anyone would be... But he's fine now and can see the funny side to all this... Apparently this sort of thing is rather commonplace where Paul lives because he is right out in the middle of the countryside."

Although the BBC have reprinted some of Paul's comments they have left out these non-sensationalist bits. Which is a shame. Worst though is that while the Daily Mirror report that:

"The adder is the only venomous snake native to Britain."

The BBC instead claim:

"The adder is the UK's only native poisonous snake..."

Rather than go into a long diatribe, I have will instead point you dear reader in the direction of wikipedia:

"There is a difference between organisms that are venomous and those that are poisonous, two commonly confused terms applied to plant and animal life. Venomous, as stated above, refers to animals that deliver (often, inject) venom into their prey when hunting or as a defense mechanism. Poisonous, on the other hand, describes plants or animals that are harmful when consumed or touched. A poison tends to be distributed over a large part of the body of the organism producing it, while venom is typically produced in organs specialized for the purpose."

It comes as something when the Daily Mirror can get this right, but the BBC cannot - particularly when the Daily Mirror article is actually the BBC's source! 

At least they haven't yet claimed the snake was 6 feet long...  

Froglife Starts to Despair

Even Froglife, the media darling of the herpetological world, are starting to get fed up with the recent flurry of news reports concerning Paul O'Grady. 

In an unauthored response to the inevitable stream of 'savaged' headlines, Froglife has urged the media to report the incident in a responsible manner. Stables, bolts and horses disappearing into the distance springs to mind here.

Me? I'm holding out for the snake to have grown to six feet by the end of today! 

The 4 foot adder

BBC America (link) is reporting that Paul O'Grady's adder has miraculously grown from 2 feet to 4 feet in less than 12 hours! You can't make this stuff up...

Update

Link to BBC America added. 

The BBC Does it Again...

What is wrong with these people. Why are we forced to pay a licence fee to an organisation that reports such complete nonsense. At the recent SE Regional Meeting of ARG UK, John Baker gave an excellent talk on the poor media coverage that herps receive in the press. This isn't just sensationalist stories such as the reporting of claimed adder bites, but inaccurate basic information. In a particularly notable example John showed a BBC Wildlife article that gave identification tips for common toad. Unfortunately, the photograph used in the article was not actually a common toad - it was a European green toad (Bufo viridis)! The BBC website has in the past published news items about great crested newt that are illustrated by photographs of smooth newts (for an example see here).  

I'm delighted to let John know that it isn't just amphibians and reptiles that are on the receiving end of such piffle. Yesterday, the BBC website ran a sensationalist article (with accompanying blog item by Rory Cellan-Jones) claiming that Apple have just released a tech note advising mac users to install anti-virus software. Those of you who use macs will know that there are zero viruses in the wild that can currently affect OSX (compare that with the current situation for windows, ouch). If Apple were indeed advising mac users to start installing anti-virus software it may indeed herald the end of the world. It is therefore amusing that the tech note in question was actually two years old. Once alerted to the coverage the note was receiving, Apple promptly removed it with advice that mac users needn't be concerned by such matters! 

Mac users are a vocal lot and poor old Rory has been advised of the error of his ways (including by me - see below). The BBC website has now republished their 'news item' with the title Apple Removes Anti-Virus Advice. Perhaps a major downside of the internet is that it is just too easy for folks who should know better to simply copy and paste inaccurate items and republish them as facts. Photographs of green toads can be easily accessed from photo libraries. The fact that it isn't the correct species? Who cares, who likes toads anyway?! 

Increasing numbers of people are questioning the value of their TV licence. If the BBC are not careful, they may find that these folks become a vocal majority...

My own response to Rory Cellan-Jones' poorly researched item should appear on his blog. It is reproduced below for your information:

"Rory I must say I am really quite disappointed with the BBC and particularly with you, with your inaccurate and sensationalist blog post. As many others have already stated, the validity of this story could so easily have been checked before the news item was published. I guess this type of blather is something we just have to accept nowadays from the BBC. The real concern is how many other news items are also so poorly represented with inaccurate information? Errors such as the one you will now be remembered for (and let's face it, it was a clanger) will be picked up by folks when the item is relatively well known. But, my concern is for the less well understood news stories, where serious reporting errors such as the one you have made are never detected and/or acknowledged. As a mac user, I do want to ensure that my computing experience remains virus and malware free. Unfortunately, your poorly researched blog item has now reinforced the very notion that your story attempted to dispel and that's official..."

Destructive Searches for Reptiles

Destructive searches involve capturing reptiles by digging up their habitat. According to best practice guidelines produced by HGBI (now ARG UK) in 1998:

"The technique is a last resort and requires very careful specialist attention as it is not always possible to prevent the occasional death or injury of a proportion of animals dug up through cutting or crushing". 

Since is is unlawful to deliberately kill or injure reptiles, I would question the whole legality of the methodology. In recent years, Kent Reptile and Amphibian Group has been made aware of consultancies who undertake destructive searches on a regular basis. It is not at all unusual for such work to be undertaken during late autumn, when animals have started to prepare for hibernation. Setting aside the legal aspects of the work, is it actually ethical to disturb hibernating reptiles? What do consultants do with animals that they have dug up? Presumably they either keep them in captivity until the spring or release them on previously prepared 'receptor sites'? Are animals released so late in the season likely to survive the winter? 

I remember a lady in Harrietsham who told me about a very unpleasant sight she witnessed. Apparently consultants had undertaken a destructive search during the winter and released large numbers of slow-worms into a so-called artificial hibernaculum. Unfortunately it was much too cold for the slow-worms and a few days after the release the lady was walking her dog and saw tens of dead animals strewn around the ground by the hibernaculum.  

Unfortunately, the HGBI guidelines have not been updated in recent years. I will be asking ARG UK and HCT to comment on this issue, with a view to discouraging inappropriate application of what can be a very inefficient and dangerous practice.