A wee competition and tale to follow

[w00dsmoke]

I'm curious as to what people think this hole is. I know and am just curious as to what folk might think then there's a tale to tell...

Context...top of very steep banking and large mound of earth in front. D shaped hole, flat side on the base. similar holes all near by but all nearly closed up, spoil heaps remain.

 

[Melonfish]

bit large for a rabbit hole, badger or fox?

 

[John Fenna]

Haggis nest holes?

 

[delbach]

Badger i think ,the hole like a capital D on it's side.
Andrew

 

[ol smokey]

Keep an eye on that "Dug" of yours, You never know what Brock will get up to when your not watching him.

 

[John Fenna]

Badger Poo pits?

 

[Nagual]

I'd be tempted to say badger too, but feel this is too obvious. Escaped were-rabbits from Wallace n Grommit? Giant Voles? Eeek ! Mutated American Signal Crayfish?

Something you don't normally see, I'm thinking. Not exactly rare, but certainly uncommon? Although as to what I have not a scoobie.

 

[w00dsmoke]

Well done folks, it's a badger sett, or more correctly it's a satelite sett and not a main sett. Now the story is ongoing so names and details are ommitted.

A week ago I was called in to assist in identifying this hole which currently sits on an urban bit of ground about to be developed. The site was surveyed by commercial surveyors who put this hole down to fox's. Now I've been involved in wildlife surveying and training for years and years so the relevant authorities were told and the site developer was shown around the sett and another one I later found. All setts were marked by fluoro string and Scottish Natural Heritage the licensing authority were informed of it. The developers were informed that any work on or within 30 meters of the sett would requirre a license from SNH.

I go away for a couple of days and come back to find all the trees and scrub around one of the setts has been felled and they have used a tracked chipper within one foot off the sett.

SNH did not see fit to license the work as the developers surveyors claimed it was fox holes and that was good enough for them. So we have a stalemate. A huge pipeline is going in very soon over the site of one sett, probably in the next day or two, so I called the wildlife liaisson officers (who i work very closely with) in who are unwilling to press charges as there are two opposing "experts" who equally claim opposing views which would need to be defended in court with more evidence. So they need more evidence to prove there are badgers there, unfortunatley the developer felled and drove a tracked vehicle across the site where there were tracks and foraging marks.

My evidence as follows is-shape of hole, no other mammaal known to us in the UK makes a d shaped hole, there are several other holes with mounds very close by but mostly closed up, there is one open hole within 50 meters with a crown down (man made digging into the tunnels from above to get at a badger), fox holes generally smell of fox and have detritous outside like fod scraps feathers etc if it's a breeding den, fox hole s generally are taller than they are wide and fox holes tend not to have huge spoil heaps with rocks in them and they are generally singular with occassionally another hole or two.
Satelite setts are by their very nature used intermitently and rarely hold the evidence of continual occupation like a main sett would.

In the meantime the badger setts will be either destroyed or so disturbed abandoned in the next few weeks which is almost cub time for any badgers (if there are badgers in the holes)

So the story as it unfolds...I've just been told that the site in question is a politically sensitive site and that any delay will have consequences...so people may have been bought off, or told to keep quiet but this is of course pure conjecture and was told by me off the record of course.

So what do you do... I am so frustrated and angry that those that we entrust to protect our natural heritage will rather listen to a developer with a lot ot lose rather than face the facts on the ground. It's time to go public very soon.

 

[myotis]

As a commercial surveyor (or at least used to be) the first thing I would have expected to have happened was for the developer to bring their original surveyors back to defend their assessment.

It could well be that when they did the survey there was evidence of it being used by foxes. I have seen foxes and rabbits move into abandonded badger setts. Indeed at one sett, I had badgers in one end and foxes (with cubs) at the other, even though all the holes had apparently been dug by badgers.

It's obviously difficult to say much from the photo, but from your other description it does sound as if it could be abandoned. even though that hole looks pretty clean. Nor can I put it into context. I would want to have a look at all the other setts around to try and have a "guess", other wise known as professional judgement, as to what was going on.

BUT as you will know, only the dominant female breeds in the main sett, with sub-dominants using outlying setts until their young are of an age not to be under threat from the dominant female. So a sett like this that was inactive 6 months ago, could well become active now.

Do you know why it was considered a fox den. The hole shape is so distinctly badger, that in my experience inexperienced surveyors are "more" likely to label it as badger, than anything else, rather than risk getting it wrong.

Which makes me think there would have to have been good evidence of it being used by foxes (and not badgers), before they would take that risk.

I would therefore expect the report to provide a good argument for it not being badger.

Having said all that, if I had done the survey, and there were several holes, and evidence of crwoning, which may cause a temporary abandonment, I would have asked for further survey closer to the works starting, and expected a managed exclusion.

Have you seen the original report or had contact with the developers consultants? If I were the devloper's badger consultant, I would expect to have an opportunity to review you assessment and make sure I hadn't made a mistake, especially as sometimes surveys may have been done years earlier and things can change.

I assume SNH have and find the report convincing.

Graham

 

[BigShot]

What to do?
Are there many badger activists?

There are plenty of people who are willing to lie down in front of diggers when it comes to building a new runway at an airport, or in front of bulldozers and loggers when it comes to protecting trees...

...could someone be inticed to "outrage" about the sett enough to physically stop anything more happening?



Alternatively, tip off the local papers and local MP - MP puts his mug in front of a camera belonging to the local papers and talks about the protected species under attack and moves things along that way.

 

[w00dsmoke]

As a commercial surveyor (or at least used to be) the first thing I would have expected to have happened was for the developer to bring their original surveyors back to defend their assessment.

They did verbally over the phone and still insist it's foxes with no exp,anation. SNH have accepted this.

It's obviously difficult to say much from the photo, but from your other description it does sound as if it could be abandoned. even though that hole looks pretty clean. Nor can I put it into context. I would want to have a look at all the other setts around to try and have a "guess", other wise known as professional judgement, as to what was going on.

BUT as you will know, only the dominant female breeds in the main sett, with sub-dominants using outlying setts until their young are of an age not to be under threat from the dominant female. So a sett like this that was inactive 6 months ago, could well become active now.

Do you know why it was considered a fox den. The hole shape is so distinctly badger, that in my experience inexperienced surveyors are "more" likely to label it as badger, than anything else, rather than risk getting it wrong.

There is no evidence of it being a breeding fox den although as you correctly pointed out, badger holes can and often are used by foxes and they do co-habit albeit nervously at times. I believe it was becuase foxes are prevelent throughout the site and a quick conlcusion may have been reached before a thorough assessment of all the evidence was taken into account.

I agree with you Graham. I have asked for any work to be carried out under license to ensure that any work which is planned is done legally and sensitive to any badgers on the site and to follow SNH's "Development and Badgers guidelines". SNH have asked for further surveying despite the fact that work was carried out over the setts without license which they endorsed, this will not prevent the immediate possible destruction of the setts.

Within 1 km there is a small group of setts including one main sett that had a huge crown down during Nov (9ft deep hole 7ft wide by 6 ft long), which is only up a natural wildlife corridor (small wooded gorge) from the context discussed.

The bottom line is for any surveyors out there to claim in a report that there is x on site even where there are other surveyors out there who dispute this and say Y is on site, SNH will always without question follow the advice of the paid contractor for the site and will not investigate any contradoctory claims nor accept any reposnibility if Y is in fact correct. This is bad practice and goes against all current practices regarding badgers and development and sets a precedent for any uscrupulous developers who will always follow their own paid surveyors rather than wait until the matter is resolved.

WS

 

[Bushwhacker]

No footprints or tracks?

 

[w00dsmoke]

No footprints or tracks?

There was tracks and feeding signs before the tracked chipper went in, then the site below the setts flooded after the chiiper went through. No evidence of tracks left.

 

[myotis]

The bottom line is for any surveyors out there to claim in a report that there is x on site even where there are other surveyors out there who dispute this and say Y is on site, SNH will always without question follow the advice of the paid contractor for the site and will not investigate any contradoctory claims nor accept any reposnibility if Y is in fact correct. This is bad practice and goes against all current practices regarding badgers and development and sets a precedent for any uscrupulous developers who will always follow their own paid surveyors rather than wait until the matter is resolved.

WS

Down here in SW England from what you have said would suggest two main setts, but with the social patterns disrupted by the disturbance to the setts. I would suspect it will be difficullt to really know what is going on here, and on the face of it, I would have erred on the side of caution.

Its a difficult one however, at the end of the day its the developer who is taking the risk, of disturbing/injuring/killing a badger(s). Assuming its the same in Scotland as England and Wales, its the developer who technically makes the decision as to whether a license is required and the licensing body that decides whether to grant it.

If you have a time, how about asking to be present on site when they remove the sett. Have you contacted the developer directly and aired your concern that you consider this to be an active sett (ie used within the last 12 months).

Unfortunately, nearly all of the time this sort of issue is simply objectors trying to make life as difficult as possible for the developer, which is why, on the occasions, when there is a real issue to be dealt with, developers tend to be a bit dismissive. It is also why a well written and reasoned letter to the developer, should get a proper response.

Even now, assuming no signs of current occupation, the developer should be able to get a license for the sett to undergo a safe exclusion. and not seriously delay the program. Which may be the best compromise in the circumstances. Of course if there is good evidence fo occupation, then that is a different matter.

It doesn't help with the best practice issue, but at least if you are there, you should be satisfied that no badgers were "directly" disturbed. Although a slightly different situation, I have over the years regulary, while working as an ecological consultant for developers, invited locally concerned people (badger group, bat group, RSPB etc) to accompany me on my survey, or watch a sett exclusion etc.

As regards best practice, its a difficult one. SNH may in fact personally know the developers surveyor and be confident in their abilities. But I would still be happier to have been given proper reasons as to why it was fox and not badger, and based on what you have said and the pics, I would have reported it as a "badger" sett, currently being used by foxes (assuming i was happy about the evidence of foxes).

The developer will always take the advice of their consultants, that is why they pay them. Its up to the consultants to decide how they respond to an issue where there is a dispute over their assessment. They can dig their heels in, and leave the developer to run the risk of breaking the law by destroying an active badger sett without a license, OR they can advise their clients that to be on the safe side we should go and have another look.

If I was the developers consultant then you and I would be meeting on site, preferably with someone from SNH to resolve what should be done. I have had to do this a few times, and it has to said that on none of those occasions was the "badger" sett, a badger sett. They were holes in the ground, but either rabbit or indisputably fox, with no evidence of badger use.

Of course, the developer doesn't always pass these things on to their ecological consultant, who may be blissfully unaware of the issue. You don't work as a badger consultant, unless you are also a badger enthusiast, hence the normal practice of erring on the side of the badger.

So another couple of questions - you have obviously been in contact with SNH, but have you been in contact with either the people who did the survey, or the developer directly.

edit : I have just reread your posts and have changed tact a bit, given the immenent devloper activity.

You found evidence of badger on the site (footprints being the most important as the feeding signs can be open to interpretation)
The holes are of the shape and form indicitaive of them being dug by badgers.
Do you have evidence of badger activity in the sett (fresh digging, pad marks going into an entrance etc)
Do not dispute the orginal surveyors findings (which may have been correct at the time), but suggest they need updated because of the more up to date, and conclusive evidence of badgers on site.
Tell the developer in writing, and copy to SNH and Wildlife liaison Officer. If you can find out who the ecological consultants were, copy them in as well, as they can often be the driver to getting something done.
This is massively increasing the risks to the developer if they go ahead regardless of your warnings


Graham

 

[Shewie]

That`s a sad tale indeed WS, sounds like there`s prominant people behind the development and you`re not going to get very far.
As others have already said maybe get the local press and animal groups involved but it sounds like it might be too late for that now.

Stories like this make my blood boil

 

[Boston973]

Hymmmm. Cant you sit out for a night and just snap a few picks when the badgers come out? Its hard to argue with a picture.

 

[BigShot]

Boston - I thought about that last night too.
If you could get photographic evidence I expect it would help things a lot.

The tough bit could be making sure the pictures were identifiable as the sett in question and not just any old sett. Including machinery in the shots may help, as would getting in and photographing any tracks you find the morning after...
...the classic "Today's Newspaper in the photograph" could make the dating of the photos beyond question.

 

[Shewie]

Have you managed to get your case across yet WS ?

 

[w00dsmoke]

It's now in the hands of the police so "no comment" until it's resolved.
(badger hair was found in the holes...)


WS