Here I refer to what I term proper “bat conservation” – not the “pretend conservation” stuff that goes on in the form of repeated and incorrect statements (argumentum ad nausea) that claim, for instance, that caring for an individual injured bat is contributing to bat conservation. It rarely is, it is just a welfare consideration for an individual, and does not aid the overall wild population. Similarly, the large-scale exercises of electronically recording bats on expensive gadgets and plotting maps is claimed somehow contribute to bat conservation! A brief close examination shows that it certainly does not!
It may pump-up the personal profile of a few people in various academic, or quasi-academic worlds, but the fact that any bat has been located at a specific eight figure grid reference for a fraction of a second one evening means little as, if it were a Noctule Bat, it could be roosting in a tree 25 kilometres away within an hour or so. How does this equate to any meaningful “conservation” contribution? In truth not one iota!
Let us not forget that these electronic devices which claim to identify “to species” can be 60% incorrect (less certain than a toss of a coin). A further layer of rich farce is added to the existing waste of time and money by “processing” these sounds on a computer, making as many as a further 95% WRONGLY allocated to so-called species. “Science”? – I think not, simply spoof implied proof only by repeated assertion!
Fortunately there is still a spread of individuals and organisations in the UK that recognise these popular failings and misconceptions and still undertake REAL bat conservation. One of these is the Norfolk Bat Group, established in 1961 as the first county bat group in the UK, even if it is now reduced to just a handful of committed active people.
One of the many positive undertakings by the group was establishing a network of protected underground hibernating sites in Norfolk. One example is shown below.
This scheme was tackled as a millennium project, started in 1996, which aimed to protect 25% of the known bat hibernation sites in the county. By 2000 only 23 sites were secured, slightly less than 25%, as available funding was failing. Others have been tackled subsequently, although some of these have subsequently been damaged, or reduced in usefulness, but overall there has been a very high level of success.
On the down side, a few sites have been broken into. Not by hooligans (although this term may be considered by some as entirely appropriate) but by those with an existing Natural England bat licence who wanted to be able to “monitor” a hibernation site, but were too idle to find or enhance their own, and too ignorant and offensive to liaise and cooperate with those who originally built or repaired the structure. Breaking off the original locks and substituting their own, as has happened in Norfolk, ought to carry an instant bat licence disqualification in my view. Bear in mind that “NBG” and other contact details are always left discreetly at such sites, and landowner permission fully established, so there are no acceptably valid excuses!
Protection site success? In brief, yes. There are between 2 and 150 bats of six species using most of the sites protected. With 100 known sites and an approximate bat ‘show-rate’ of perhaps ten percent per annum, plus some monitoring over 35 years suggests around 8,000 bats have been given some measure of hibernation protection annually in the county.
One bat hibernation aid that was developed by the group in parallel with the underground site protection was the “Norfolk Bat Brick”. Information at: http://tinyurl.com/pwsckwv
The first prototype brick was made and installed in a Norfolk lime kiln in October 1983. A Daubenton Bat was in it for the 1st observed time at the end of 2013 – 30 years on! See below.
The design and materials have been subject to continuous improvements over the 30 years, with over 7,000 having now been made and installed. At some sites during the winter over 100 bats are using the bat bricks. As is customary with anything that seems to work well, there have been some imitations, although there is a design copyright on the product. I will be reviewing, and commenting on these in a future blog.
JGG 12-01-2014
No comments:
Post a Comment