the online meeting place for all who love our amphibians and reptiles |
|
How about an in-situ shot? |
Post Reply | Page <1 23456 11> |
Author | |
GemmaJF
Admin Group Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
But if one looks at the guidance above
Is the species in question protected? Yes Is it likely that I am going to commit an offence in my activity, i.e. disturbance, which it is protected against Yes Do I therefore need a licence? Yes. The next step is to pick up the phone and talk to the NE licensing department. There is really no escaping that Sand Lizards are protected against disturbance and anything other than the most casual of observation ***probably*** could be regarded by some people as disturbing them and therefore potentially as committing an offence. Personally I would have to get close enough to a juvenile to potentially risk disturbing it, even to be sure of the ID. If one wanted to argue in court that bird watchers do it all the time thereby flouting the law, all one has is an example of what others get away with rather than an defence. If a case did get to court they would use documents such as that provided earlier to build the case. It is pretty clear to me it is saying one would need a licence. So it would also be clear to a magistrate too?
Edited by GemmaJF - 12 Dec 2013 at 6:05pm |
|
Richard2
Senior Member Joined: 01 Dec 2010 Status: Offline Points: 285 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This almost makes me want to be the test case.
We have come full circle, back to the question of what would count as "disturbance". We just don't know, but obviously Natural England and the National Trust take a more relaxed view. They can't think that merely watching is disturbance, because they invite the public to do it. That would be my defence, I think. Natural England, after all, is the licence-issuing authority. Richard
|
|
GemmaJF
Admin Group Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It is a magistrate that will prosecute, not NE. Who can guess what they will think disturbance means.
But to add... If by chance they happened to ask my opinion what it meant, I would have to say that is very difficult to observe reptiles at close quarters and not risk disturbing them. Regardless how careful one is or how experienced one is... That's just fact is it not?
Edited by GemmaJF - 12 Dec 2013 at 6:47pm |
|
Richard2
Senior Member Joined: 01 Dec 2010 Status: Offline Points: 285 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Once again, it all depends on what the law means by "disturbing". It is difficult to watch reptiles at close quarters without risking making them run for cover. Whether, in the meaning of the law, that constitutes disturbance or whether disturbance means something more serious is what this whole debate is about.
I would have to place my faith in the common sense of a British magistrate. The fact that English Nature had publicly invited me to do it would be a piece of admissible evidence, i would think. Richard |
|
GemmaJF
Admin Group Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If they went for a dictionary definition it would be along the lines of
something that interrupts them or makes them feel worried I would guess making something run away could qualify? I guess the most ironic thing is one would pretty much have to creep up stealthily to 'disturb' a reptile. Perhaps that is the difference. A member of the public probably would not have the ability to achieve this. I know for sure plenty of rangers who never see anything on their own sites from what they say. So now we have a picture of someone creeping through the undergrowth targeting the animals. Again far removed from a member of the public getting a fleeting glance whilst on a path. I don't see how anyone could not see the potential of 'disturbance' in such a situation really. I pretty much give up looking for adders at my local site when other people are about looking for them. They clearly do disturb the animals.
Edited by GemmaJF - 12 Dec 2013 at 8:45pm |
|
Richard2
Senior Member Joined: 01 Dec 2010 Status: Offline Points: 285 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
Richard2
Senior Member Joined: 01 Dec 2010 Status: Offline Points: 285 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks, Gemma. I hope you don't think I'm keeping on about this just for the sake of argument. It seems very important to me. The actual wording of the disturbance clause introduces another complication: "a person is guilty of an offence if intentionally or recklessly—
(b)he disturbs any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection;"
It has to be using a structure or place for shelter or protection. One could take this to mean that one will be committing an offence if one pursues the animal or otherwise continues to disturb it once it has run under cover, but not in the initial instance of startling it out in the open. Or one could argue, I guess, that the whole nature reserve constitutes the structure or place, but that's a particular interpretation. It's another grey area. What I have in mind is someone getting, as you say, a fleeting glance on a path, but then stopping and crouching to watch. This doesn't require any great skill or knowledge at all, just a bit of luck. Or not even that if you are following the instructions NE and NT kindly provide on their signage. Lizards don't always run away at the slightest movement. Or one might wait motionlessly for the lizard to come out again. How could that be disturbance?
|
|
Richard2
Senior Member Joined: 01 Dec 2010 Status: Offline Points: 285 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Sorry about my spacing. Pasting that bit of the Act in made it go crazy.
|
|
GemmaJF
Admin Group Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I would as a potential expert witness happily state that an earth bank was a place of refuge for a lizard though. In fact all of its natural habitat qualifies. Surely vegetation provides shelter or protection when you are a lizard or snake. It does not have to be a specific 'den' as such as far as I can see. Much the way a pond qualifies to a GCN or a log if it is under it.
Someone lucky on a path I would say would be very unlucky if they were prosecuted for disturbance. Someone who regularly wanders off the path to creep about with a camera in the undergrowth (for example even the most amateur of herpetologists) ought to be thinking about what they are doing and whether they ought to have some form of licence if protected species are present. |
|
Richard2
Senior Member Joined: 01 Dec 2010 Status: Offline Points: 285 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If that someone being lucky on a path can be someone who has deliberately gone there to look out for lizards, then I think we have reached common ground.
Richard |
|
Post Reply | Page <1 23456 11> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |