ecology reports

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The offence is to disturb a bat roost, rather than intend to disturb a bat root.

 

If you are up a tree and disturb bats (or a roost that bats use) you have already commited an offence.

 

Here's and extract from BCT website Mat, It's also in the Wildlife & Countryside Act (but it's too late on a Sunday to read that!)

 

"Bats and the Law

 

In Britain all bat species and their roosts are legally protected, by both domestic and international legislation.

 

This means you will be committing a criminal offence if you:

 

Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat

Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats"

 

So what I was saying was, if you do a survey, if you take all reasonable steps to investigate before starting work (and can show evidence of doing so) you are not likely to face a prosecution should you later find that you have disturbed. That's the way it was presented at our bat awareness briefing and it accords with how I read the regs. I'm no bat expert so if I'm reading it wrong?

[oslac]

My understanding of this is that if you disturb a bat roost, injure a bat etc. it would be for the court to show that it was an intentional or wreckless act. However . . .

 

Carrying out works in a woodland and then saying I had no intention to disturb the bats (also noise may disturb bats therefor chainsaw works in close proximity to a bat roost may also be an offence) is likely to be viewed with a dim light by the local magistrate as bats are known to live in trees within woodlands and therefore a tree surgeon who carries out tree work contracts should be aware of the legislation and aware that a PEA or bat roost survey should be carried out if for no other reason than to discharge their responsibility towards bats and the law surrounding bats.

[Mat]

Here's and extract from BCT website Mat, It's also in the Wildlife & Countryside Act (but it's too late on a Sunday to read that!)

 

"Bats and the Law

 

In Britain all bat species and their roosts are legally protected, by both domestic and international legislation.

 

This means you will be committing a criminal offence if you:

 

Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat

Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats"

 

So what I was saying was, if you do a survey, if you take all reasonable steps to investigate before starting work (and can show evidence of doing so) you are not likely to face a prosecution should you later find that you have disturbed. That's the way it was presented at our bat awareness briefing and it accords with how I read the regs. I'm no bat expert so if I'm reading it wrong?

 

Christ, I hope you are right. We have been struggling under 'the tyranny of the disturbed bat' for a few years now.

 

The process you describe is similar to the one we follow for nesting birds. Does this mean that bats have no greater level of protection than nesting birds then?

[oslac]

Christ, I hope you are right. We have been struggling under 'the tyranny of the disturbed bat' for a few years now.

 

The process you describe is similar to the one we follow for nesting birds. Does this mean that bats have no greater level of protection than nesting birds then?

 

Bats along with Great Crested Newts are the gods of protected species. You need a license to even sniff them. Harm a nesting bird . . slap on wrist. Harm a bat and spend the rest of your life in hell.

[Mat]

Bats along with Great Crested Newts are the gods of protected species. You need a license to even sniff them. Harm a nesting bird . . slap on wrist. Harm a bat and spend the rest of your life in hell.

 

Yeeees.

 

Somehow I had the feeling that was the case

 

Cheers.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Christ, I hope you are right. We have been struggling under 'the tyranny of the disturbed bat' for a few years now.

 

The process you describe is similar to the one we follow for nesting birds. Does this mean that bats have no greater level of protection than nesting birds then?

 

It reads the same for birds and bats as far as I can see Matt in relation to 'intentionally/recklessly' but don't take my interpretation as 'the law.' I'd say have a word with someone from the BCT to get their view - maybe a general / anonymous enquiry if you don't want to bring specific attention to your work site. The majority of people I've spoken to at BCT will prefer to work with you to find a solution rather than against you.

[N1ck]

The "incidental result defence" was removed in 2007. This basically said that if a bat roost was disturbed as an unintentional consequence of a lawful action, such as felling trees covered by a felling licence, you couldn't be prosecuted. But European legislation removed this defence. If you disturb a roost no matter how unwittingly you can be prosecuted.

 

There is loads of guidance on the FC webpages about European Protected Species Habitat Regs covering bats, doormice, great crested newts etc.

 

Nick

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The "incidental result defence" was removed in 2007. This basically said that if a bat roost was disturbed as an unintentional consequence of a lawful action, such as felling trees covered by a felling licence, you couldn't be prosecuted. But European legislation removed this defence. If you disturb a roost no matter how unwittingly you can be prosecuted.

 

There is loads of guidance on the FC webpages about European Protected Species Habitat Regs covering bats, doormice, great crested newts etc.

 

Nick

 

Hey Nick, just to clarify in my mind, if you'd done a search / survey to the best of your ability, it wouldn't be an incidental result defence and it wouldn't be 'intentional' disturbance? And if it's not reckless / intentional, it's not an offence - according to my reading of the C&W Act. Like so many things, you think you understand it then it changes. I'll look at FC and see what they have to say about it.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/england-protectedspecies-bats.pdf/$FILE/england-protectedspecies-bats.pdf

 

Para 3, still refers to "deliberately", so if you've done your investigation before hand, found no sign of current or former roosts, and documented it, it can't be deliberate (so long as you stop if you subsequently found roosts) it can't be an offence.

[oslac]

Hey Nick, just to clarify in my mind, if you'd done a search / survey to the best of your ability, it wouldn't be an incidental result defence and it wouldn't be 'intentional' disturbance? And if it's not reckless / intentional, it's not an offence - according to my reading of the C&W Act. Like so many things, you think you understand it then it changes. I'll look at FC and see what they have to say about it.

 

If you carry out a bat roost survey, you will need a licence and you won't get a licence unless you can show that you are competant. If you are a competant surveyor with the appropriate licence and you say there are no bats in a potential roost when in fact there are and, for example, the tree is felled, I expect the tree surgeon who who relied on your findings and felled the tree would not be liable.