Dysfunctional conservation laws

[peter5930]

I have a bit of an issue with wildlife legislation at it currently stands, and I know I'm not the only one. I attended the first Scottish herpetology conference last year, and there was a lecture about Triturus cristatus. Unfortunately, the speaker couldn't provide locality information since the farmer who's land the newts had been studied on didn't want to lose the use of his land by having it officially become Great Crested Newt habitat. In the UK, you can't even look at them funny without getting a license and waiting until it's the right time of the year, so naturally the most sensible thing to do if you ever come across one on your property is to kill it and never tell anybody. To let them live and be discovered can have disastrous consequences:

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Wiltshire | Newts stop flood ditch clearance

Couple kept out of £1m home by a 3in newt - Telegraph

There have also been gross misallocations of resources in the quest to preserve the Great Crested Newt:

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Leicestershire | Council's demand for newt funds

Council crestfallen after wasting £1m on great crested newts - which weren't there | Mail Online

£1,000,000 would pay for a lot of captive breeding for re-release and the creation of new GCN habitats, and in my opinion would have been a far more productive use of the resources than attempting to trap the newts in the wild once a preliminary survey revealed that the ponds were not exactly teeming with them.

Is the Great Crested Newt even a species in need of extreme protection?

24. Wildlife law, on the other hand, is inconsistent, repetitive and much less responsive. The thinking behind the Marine Bill has a lot to offer terrestrial biodiversity conservation such as the need for a review of out-of-date and redundant fisheries legislation. We suggest such a review should also be carried out for wildlife
legislation. Why, for example, are we free to kill foxes but not badgers when there are more badgers than foxes? Why can a trap be set for a mink or a stoat, but not a polecat when all three can be shot? Why can a black grouse from among a declining population of 13,000 be shot when a stock dove with an increasing population of half a million cannot be shot?

25. Certain species are protected by layer upon layer of European and British legislation. This is exemplified by the case of the beloved Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus), an animal that members of the British public are prohibited from disturbing in any way (including handling) much less selling, injuring, killing or damaging its habitats 33.

26 Despite suffering a modest 2% decline over 5 years in the 1980s, this species numbers at least a third of a million in over 18,000 ponds in the UK – the greatest stronghold of a widespread European population (including Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Republic of, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine).

As a result of heavy protection, there are several dozen consultants in the county of Kent alone who carry out surveys and mitigation action on behalf of the newt and have the power to halt, or at least stall, major developments. The Great Crested newt is considered of Least Concern on the IUCN Red List.

27. Contrast this with the plight of the now ironically named common skate, Dipturus batis. This magnificent animal which grows to 3 metres and can live over 50 years was once the most abundant bottom-living fish of north-west Europe. Intensively exploited during the mid 20th century, the common skate is still available in fish shops in the UK despite its dramatic decline throughout European waters and probable extinction in the English Channel and Irish Sea. Urgent active management action is required to reduce fishing effort, impose mesh size regulations and define non-trawling areas to protect both the adult and eggs. It is now listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List. The common skate has been proposed for strict protection under the UK Wildlife and Countryside Act in both quinquennial reviews since 2001 but a decision is still pending. DEFRA cites lack of staff resources as the reason for the delay.

And how well do these protections really serve the species? Captive breeding is illegal in the UK, and even touching them is illegal without a licence. Developers and landowners fear having GCN's discovered on their property and have every motivation to kill them on sight or pre-emptively destroy potential newt habitats before they can be colonised by GCN's. The GCN's, for their part, are not even particularly sensitive to disturbance from human activities.

I could go on at length about CITES, the axolotl gene pool, and the illegalities of exporting listed species from a habitat in which extinction is a near certainty for preservation through captive breeding, but it's late and I've had enough for tonight.

 

[John]

I hope this sparks a lively debate. I'm not a tree-hugging hippy, as such, but I am very much of the opinion that it's the ultimate arrogance of people that they believe their rights to land should automatically come before those of animals. What do you think?

 

[peter5930]

I'm against wholesale and wanton habitat destruction, but I think that the law has taken a counter-productive approach to preserving endangered species (or least concern species, in the case of the GCN) that creates or aggravates conflicts between animals and human land users.

I'd much rather see a system that incentivises people for having GCN habitat on their properties, rather than penalising them for it. Perhaps the creation of GCN habitat could be stipulated in planning permission, if it weren't for the fact that under the current law, having GCN's on a property would be disastrous for the owner and deliberately introducing GCN's into a newly created habitat is an onerous legal process.

At the herpetology conference, there was a talk on pond-building activities being undertaken by volunteers in the local amphibian and reptile group, however once a pond had been built, it was up to amphibians to find it themselves due to the legal obstacles to deliberate introduction. As a result, most of the ponds were not being colonised by GCN's, even many years after their creation.

I'm in favour of a much more hands-on approach to wildlife conservation than is currently allowed. I'd like for people to be happy to have wildlife on their land rather than fearing it as a liability, and I'd like for there to be more scope for captive breeding, trade, and actively maintaining habitats rather than having to take a strict hands-off approach that leaves animals to uncertain fates. Ethics and human arrogance aside, a pragmatic assessment of the current legislation is that it encourages the 3-S approach to wildlife management by putting humans and wildlife in direct opposition to each other:

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Ralph R. Reiland wrote an essay called Shoot, Shovel & Shut Up,[1] describing landowners' reactions to finding Red-cockaded Woodpeckers on their property. Under the Endangered Species Act, landowners who have a population of such birds on their property may be subject to restrictions on building and other land uses that would interfere with the animals' habitat. Therefore, it was considered prudent to eliminate the birds before the government noticed their presence. The Fall 2001 issue of the Sierra Citizen notes, "'Shoot, shovel and shut up' is the mantra of many in the so-called 'property rights' movement . . . It refers to the practice of killing and burying evidence of any plants or animals that might be threatened or endangered".[2] The property rights movement argues that the Endangered Species Act should be amended to compensate property owners for protecting endangered species, rather than making an endangered species a financial drain on the owners, and that the current Act actually hastens the decline of some endangered species when listed by causing property owners to 'shoot, shovel, and shut up' to avoid expected losses.[3]

 

[peter5930]

qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/faculty/garvie/eer/lueckmichael.pdf

This paper examines the extent to which landowners have preemptively destroyed
habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) in the forests of North
Carolina in order to avoid potential land-use regulations prescribed under the En-
dangered Species Act (ESA). Under the ESA, it is illegal to kill an endangered
species and it is also illegal to damage its habitat. By preventing the establishment
of an old-growth pine stand, landowners can ensure that RCWs do not inhabit their
land and avoid ESA regulations that limit or prohibit timber harvest activity. Data
from 1984–90 on over 1,000 individual forest plots are used to test predictions about
the probability of harvest and the age of timber when it is harvested. We find that
increases in the proximity of a plot to RCWs increases the probability that the plot
will be harvested and decreases the age at which the forest is harvested.

 

[xxianxx]

I'd much rather see a system that incentivises people for having GCN habitat on their properties, rather than penalising them for it. Perhaps the creation of GCN habitat could be stipulated in planning permission, if it weren't for the fact that under the current law, having GCN's on a property would be disastrous for the owner and deliberately introducing GCN's into a newly created habitat is an onerous legal process.

Two very good points Peter. Red tape getting in the way of conservation. I wonder how many ponds are filled in by developers at the first sighting of a random newt ? The current legal system provides no incentive for landowners having gcn on their property and without such, their actions may often be weighted against them. Also the building of gcn habitat and then not stocking it with a population would be amusing but for its stupidity.

 

[Azhael]

I see how the current situation is problematic, although i side with John in that giving humans preference every time is no good, specially in such a crowded country. I do have a problem with the idea of reintroductions, though, specially is they were to be done by hobbyists or non-official organisms. It´s risky business.
Sure, it´s a pitty that there are suitable areas that haven´t been colonized yet, but allowing people to just introduce animals, is not a good solution. For one, if it´s not controlled, there could be a number of independent relocations, damaging the status of "donor" populations. Also, given the fact that T.carnifex is present in the country and hybridizing with T.cristatus, and that most people couldn´t distinguish them at all, it would be a hazard for the unwitting expansion of T.carnifex or the hybrids.
A similar problem would be the release of CB animals if they are not a native bloodline (people often think that being the same species is good enough, and that´s just not true). There´s also a patogen introduction hazard.

Also, people could potentially try to relocate animals into habitats that are not really suitable, without knowing it.

Reintroductions are very tricky...personally i would never want to see any done by anyone else but an official organism that knows what it´s doing.

 

[xxianxx]

Reintroductions are very tricky...personally i would never want to see any done by anyone else but an official organism that knows what it´s doing.

I agree, this is what is was referring to in my post and not people throwing random newts into a newly made pond.

 

[EasternNewtLove]

Wait... People will purposely kill the newts to keep their land from becoming classified as a GCN habitat? That is just awful. Not only are they knowingly and willfully breaking the law, but they are also killing a member of an endangered species. I know almost nothing about the laws protecting these newts, but something has to change if the laws are driving people to kill this endangered species.

 

[peter5930]

I was having a look online to see if there were any official captive breeding programs for GCN's, and I came across this thread that I thought gave a valuable perspective on the chilling effect that current legislation has on people who would otherwise be unreservedly delighted to have GCN's on their property:

Great crested newt - UltimateReef.com

Hi, I know this is a marine forum but i could do with some advice if possible, i have a large pond which is about 10 years old and has always had a healthy wildlife population even more so now that a large industrial area has been built not to far away on a large farmland/wasteland area, about a month ago i had a large number of frogs as usual breeding but noticed some newts in an orgy, i managed to identify these as smooth newts which are common throughout england but shortly after noticing these i also spotted a large black newt much bigger then the others and when researching its identity it only matches a great crested newt which im very pleased with, now what im actually wondering is how can i make my garden and pond more habitable and attractive for them? im very concious of not making massive changes because they must already like it as i selected mainly native plants to help bring local wildlife into my garden. Should i add logs? rocks for sheltering under? something to attract edible insects for them? ive tried looking into what to do via google but cant find an appropiate advice sheet and i do'nt want to report these to the local authoraties as i want to be able to have my garden to myself and do'nt want a bunch of hippies telling me i cant mow the lawn etc, any advice is much appreciated

Where in the country are you? We have lots of these in worcester, cool animals arent they. I m sure you know they are protected snd as you say watch who you tell

hi Tim im in lancashire mate, brilliant little animals to watch and glad to have them in the garden, yeah i know they are protected (thats sort of what is giving me a buzz to have them in the garden) and yeah your right i wo'nt be broadcasting it to the locals lol and forgot to mention they were found and moved when they started building the industrial site nearby

I've just spent the last 4 weeks surveying GCN populations in staffordshire. They are protected so don't get caught handling them!

i work on a site that was built in 1936 that has a medium -high population of great creasted and yellow belly newts, we have lots of e.w.s. ponds that they like to spawn in. if you manage to hit one with the lawn mower dont tell anyone i think its a 5 grand fine and a dead newt . i think they are protected by euro law aswell. but good luck with them anyway, they are both beautiful and interesting.

 

[peter5930]

I see how the current situation is problematic, although i side with John in that giving humans preference every time is no good, specially in such a crowded country. I do have a problem with the idea of reintroductions, though, specially is they were to be done by hobbyists or non-official organisms. It´s risky business.
Sure, it´s a pitty that there are suitable areas that haven´t been colonized yet, but allowing people to just introduce animals, is not a good solution. For one, if it´s not controlled, there could be a number of independent relocations, damaging the status of "donor" populations. Also, given the fact that T.carnifex is present in the country and hybridizing with T.cristatus, and that most people couldn´t distinguish them at all, it would be a hazard for the unwitting expansion of T.carnifex or the hybrids.
A similar problem would be the release of CB animals if they are not a native bloodline (people often think that being the same species is good enough, and that´s just not true). There´s also a patogen introduction hazard.

Also, people could potentially try to relocate animals into habitats that are not really suitable, without knowing it.

Reintroductions are very tricky...personally i would never want to see any done by anyone else but an official organism that knows what it´s doing.

There could be a simpler and more streamlined process in which a person endeavouring to create a GCN habitat isn't saddled with prohibitive costs, a Byzantine licensing process and faced with considerable legal liabilities if they make a mistake. How about a national captive breeding centre in which disease free, genetically screened newts are bred and dispatched to people wanting to populate their backyard ponds for a small (possibly subsidised) fee? Running such a program might be orders of magnitude cheaper than supporting the current industry of newt-surveys, trapping, relocation and the associated bureaucracy, while being more effective at preventing disease transmission, genetic contamination and preserving native genetic diversity, and resulting in lower costs to society from economic disruption when projects are delayed or houses are repeatedly flooded for the sake of a blocked drainage ditch which can't be cleared. Newts could even be dispatched based on post-codes so that distinct local populations are maintained in different parts of the country.

That's what I mean by a hands-on approach to conservation; a professional, concerted effort that isn't simply leaving animals to their fates and declaring them off-limits to the general public, as though they were sacred artefacts that could only be handled by members of an elite priesthood, but actively working to maintain a species in a flexible, intelligent manner that encourages humans to share land with wildlife rather than making people fear the day a protected species turns up on their property.

 

[peter5930]

Another case of people's real-life experiences of having GCN's on their property:

Great Crested Newt prosocutions - CaptiveBred Reptile Forums, Reptile Classified, Forum

My old man has them in his pond at home! Amazing little critters! We've had a good population since I can remember, but there's been a hell of a lot of red tape around them. He wanted for ages to build a second pond nearby to encourage more growth but they just wouldn't let him! Gutting really.

It was something to do with other species in the area and that a new larger pond would encourage more species (frogs etc) to come in and give the newts competition as he lives about 200m from a nature reserve.

It's a real shame! He would enlarge the original pond but he'd get done for disturbing them so he's stuck and can't do anything!

I am a Senior Ecologist licensed for GCN. If you would like a bit of free advice and can provide me with a bit more info (and a Google Earth photo of the site if possible) then I will see what help I can be.

Thanks, but as far as I'm aware my old man has exhausted almost every approach. He works at wellesbourne HRI (now Warwick HRI now that the Uni has taken it over) and was able to get in touch with a few people about it through there but has no real success as his hands are just tied. I'll see what he says, but I think he gave up trying to expand a while ago now sadly!

 

[peter5930]

Here's a proposal for how the current system could be changed with respect to property developers:

Challenging Red Tape? « Richard Wilson Ecology

Having worked with contractors, developers, architects, designers and engineers, I think that you are a lot cannier and a more savvy group than the Government seem to acknowledge and, importantly, recognise that a healthy environment is a good thing. A good thing financially, a good thing commercially and a good thing at weekends. And if presented in an intelligent and articulate way, a more robust suite of environmental legislation may also be welcomed by you…but, and there is a but, only if there is clarity, proportionality and mutuality. Clarity such that everyone understands and appreciates what is protected, why it is protected, by how much it will be protected and where it will or can be protected. Proportionality such that where protected species or habitats are present and it is not realistic to avoid disturbing or losing them, then a more pragmatic approach, whilst still retaining the favourable conservation status (as the minimum), would be allowed under agreed circumstances and following robust guidelines, thus avoiding a dogmatic approach that can and does exist; and mutuality in that as far as is possible, all sectors get buy in. This for me would be the real benefit of the red-tape challenge and, I think, can be illustrated with an example.

Take a site with some ponds, some rough grassland and some scrub. The grassland grades in to a sparsely vegetated habitat with bare ground consisting of broken up concrete, loose gravelly material but flower-rich, i.e. a fairly typical brownfield site. The pond has a population of great crested newts and there are some important invertebrates such as scarce bumblebees, solitary bees and wasps, spiders and butterflies, some included in the local biodiversity action plan.

In today’s legislative climate, great emphasis would be placed on translocating the great crested newts at some considerable expense, including construction of new ponds and terrestrial habitat. Licence applications may take more than 30 working days to be reviewed by the statutory nature conservation organisation (SNCO), more if they themselves request further information; and the translocation period may last at least two months. It could be more than a quarter of a year before the developer gets on site. Meanwhile, there is very limited protection, if any, given to the diverse invertebrate assemblage. Retaining the good will of the developer in trying to either retain or mitigate this habitat can be easily lost in the frustration that can follow.

However, if the energies expended on the red tape challenge were spent on a comprehensive and intelligent review of our nature conservation legislation, reflecting the challenges of the 21st century (e.g. biodiversity loss, climate change and sustainable development) and the obvious need, for say affordable housing, then perhaps a more pragmatic approach, providing holistic benefits to nature conservation can be achieved.

Returning to the example, rather than making every effort to collect every newt, perhaps a shorter but no less robust translocation exercise could be undertaken, using the traditional approach of temporary amphibian fencing but say over a period of two weeks and not two months, followed by a finger-tip search in suitable habitat; and with a less complicated and onerous licence application. The developer benefits by getting on site much earlier and potentially saves a considerable amount of money. The SNCO benefits as less time is spent reviewing sometimes complex development proposals – after all, they are under resourced and under pressure – and can focus their limited resources on managing SSSIs or other extremely important and vital work. The great crested newt benefits as it is still moved out the way, has two new ponds (instead of one) and the population is not lost or isolated.

And what about that money saving? Does it line the pockets of the developer? Well, here’s my outrageous proposition…what about some of it lining the developers pocket, but a big proportion, a very big proportion gets to line the pocket of nature conservation by being diverted to protect/ mitigate the invertebrate rich habitat that currently receives little protection. This can either be achieved by strengthening the legislation to ensure that developers provide meaningful habitat mitigation, signed off by an accredited qualified ecologist or using an existing mechanism such as a Section 106 Agreement, which could fund the exercise. Examples could be on site mitigation such as a green roof (which would have added benefits such as Code for Sustainable Homes) or appropriate habitat creation in a quiet corner whose monitoring and management could be ceded to a local wildlife trust or relevant community group. Alternatively, if the on-site option is not practical, or just as an alternative, then a commitment for off-site mitigation in line with the RSPB’s Futurescape or the Wildlife Trust’s Living Landscapes could be offered.

So the alternative approach would still protect great crested newts, still enable the developer to build and over a much shorter timeframe and with less delay, but also protect the invertebrate rich habitat too. The challenge should not be identifying red tape, but finding pragmatic, proportionate and mutually inclusive conservation. And it has Government support.

 

[TristanH]

I think there is a widespread view that there is a problem with the law concerning GCN in Britain. Here are my personal views:

- GCN is Britain's largest caudate and most spectacular amphibian. It is widespread in lowland areas and is not particularly sensitive to water quality. It's also a species for which habitat creation and / or population translocations are feasible, and can live in close proximity to people, including I believe in garden ponds. However, at a European level it is quite threatened (i.e. Britain has a special responsibility).

- The current laws protecting it under the Wildlife & Countryside Act (as amended) do not make a distinction between protecting individual newts and populations of newts. This means that licensing authorities, councils etc get tremendously worried about the discovery of a single newt under a log somewhere, when they should be focussed on protecting, managing and creating areas of suitable habitat, especially ponds.

- The law against keeping GCN is also counter productive in the pet trade, because it encourages the keeping of non-native crested newts such as T. carnifex, a proportion of which then escape and may hybridise with native newts. It also discourages children and adults alike from encountering this magnificent animal.

- As others have argued, the strict protection for T. cristatus may also encourage unscrupulous developers to destroy populations of this or other species. Having said that, individuals who do this are capable of anything. I'd be quite happy to see the full force of the law applied to these people.

For me the most important thing is to get rid of the perception that having GCN is a bad thing, and encourage people to embrace their local newts. That means incentivising habitat creation and managment, whilst ensuring that the UK meets its obligations for GCN under the Habitats Directive. By the way, I don't think there is any need for captive breeding with its attendant costs and risks. However, banning something is cheap and easy as a policy, whereas effective integrated conservation management is much harder. Pond Conservation have been doing some good work digging ponds for GCN unde their Million Ponds project, and have also produced some factsheets. See
Pond Conservation | Million Ponds | Pond Creation Toolkit

Tristan

 

[esn]

Recently rediscovered this topic while considering a course project to explore. I will be over the next few months writing a research paper on the effects of conservation laws on the species they seek to protect - that is, to discover if they really are helping anything.

Does anyone perhaps know of any more journal articles regarding preemptive habitat destruction? Lueck & Michael's article was very helpful to me, and I was hoping to find one regarding GCN in particular.

 

[arrowwood]

Here in Michigan, I can legally catch 10 amphibians per day (approximately 90% of species) and use them as BAIT with a 30 fishing license (purchasable online or in any of thousands of shops)!?!

But breeding any amphibians (native or not, captive-bred or wild-caught) seems to require personal approval from one particular administrator in the department of agriculture on top of an approved research plan, a 150$ aquaculture permit and an approved site with roof and walls (outdoor ponds or inside a greenhouse disallowed?)

How's that for dysfunctional?