RAUK - Archived Forum - Posts by Jim Foster:

One interesting point to be aware of in these sorts of reports of adder bites is whether an adder was really the culprit. I've investigated a number of cases where people claim to have been bitten but have not actually seen the snake, and from distribution records one can rule out adders. I am sure that some cases are actually due to spiders (my invertebrate colleagues tell me there are quite a few British species that are capable of delivering a painful bite) or even thorns etc. A few years ago I looked into a case where a man claimed to have been bitten, and suffered some of the symptoms one would expect from adder envenomation, but we were puzzled because there were no adders in the area. We had a blood sample tested at Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and they detected no antibodies to adder venom. It was rather mysterious!

Re the severity of adder bite, I agree that underplaying the dangers of adder bite is unwise. We have just produced a leaflet on reptiles in gardens (available from our Enquiry Service on 01733 455100, or download from website, if you're interested) in which we say that "most reactions to adder bites are mild, but any bite should be regarded as serious and immediate medical advice should be sought." But from experience I know the impact of sensational reporting - there is certainly a risk of real conservation losses via persecution if the message is distorted. I think the comparison with insect sting mortality is useful as it sets the risks in context (many people do genuinely believe there are multple annual deaths from adders), but obviously it is completely wrong to make a direct comparison of toxicity between bees/wasps/hornets and adders. There have been two reported British deaths from insect stings in the last couple of months, tragically. Detailed risk assessment is, I would suggest, far too complex a subject to try to convey accurately in general media opportunities. The message has to be simple and positive: unless you go around catching adders, you are extremely unlikely to be bitten, but if you are bitten, get help quickly!

English Nature recently published a short (8 page, A4) leaflet entitled "Great crested newts on your farm." The aim of this leaflet is to encourage positive management for the species in agricultural areas, and to allay the disquiet that some landowners express when newts are found in their ponds. There are photos of newts, id features, habitat descriptions, management advice, comments on integration with farming practices, and sources of advice and financial aid. The primary target audience is farmers, and secondarily those who advise them (FWAG, RDS, English Nature, etc). This first version is written for a Suffolk audience, the idea being to test how well it is received there and then produce a national version in due course. So, while most of the info is generally applicable across the range, some sections are specific to Suffolk.

You can download it from:

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/about/teams/team_photo/GreatNewts.pdf

or get a printed copy by ringing our Suffolk Area Team (01284 762218). Any comments from those involved in advising landowners would be gratefully received. Sorry if I've posted this in the wrong section - just realised that maybe it should have gone in the Publications area.

Jim Foster, English Nature

We put the following news release out this week to try to generate some positive media coverage of snakes and lizards, and particularly to encourage sympathetic garden management, discourage persecution, and help with identification. So far there has been some take up, mainly in local newspapers. To go to our press page, the URL is:

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=506

Jim Foster.

As a follow-up to the last message, you may wish to see the BBC's sympathetic, well-linked coverage of the story at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3144451.stm

Jim

Yes, not sure that "delighting" is quite the term I'd use! It's actually quite difficult to generalise about how reptiles will have fared in the recent hot spell. There's some evidence that reptiles become less active when it gets very hot (certainly with slow-worms I've noticed that a hot, dry spell seems to drive down sightings during monitoring visits). But as a few others have said elsewhere on this site, reptiles have been found out and about in the last couple of weeks - even under extremely hot tins! I also think the species will react quite differently according to their thermal ecology. Certainly for snakes the typical basking behaviour normally more evident in, say, May would be less common (or occur much earlier and later in the day) when ambient temps are so high. One might propose too that hatching/birth will be earlier this year, given the excellent opportunities for incubation. I do hope the mortality Wolfgang mentions does not arise, especially as hotter summers may be on the cards if you believe some predictions; will try to look out for signs of this at some of the sites being monitored. Wolfgang - are there any particular signs to watch out for?

Our point in the press release was that people are outdoors more, and reptiles are fairly active (often zipping through gardens), so we get a peak of calls from concerned members of the public in July-August in most years. Obviously any reptile surveyor will tell you this a bad time to do proper surveys, but that's not what we were saying. I thought it best not to get into the science in this instance, and cut to the positive messages about habitat management, identification, etc.

Jon

Thanks for pointing this out. It's an important but tricky issue. It is not illegal to sell these species (so long as they were obtained legally), but it would be an offence to release them or to allow them to escape into the wild under S14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Unenclosed gardens would normally be classed as "wild" in the terms of the Act. A key issue is that the potential buyers are not made aware of this, and even if they are, it can be difficult to prevent escapes. There are many cases where well-meaning people have purchased such species and simply released them into the garden, from where they have spread.

I think one possible way forward is to do some publicity on the issue, combined with a visit to the pet shops/garden centres concerned. I could help with this at some point.

Jim

Dave

Be careful! It sounds very like Echis from your description. I used to find a lot of them in south India, and they do exactly as you've described. The noise they make is impressive for a small snake. They often hold their ground and strike repeatedly when cornered. The scales really are incredibly well keeled.

The photo you posted didn't come out too well, and am not sure about id.  Echis are very variable, and I'm not up to date with the taxonomy but sure someone like Wolfgang W is. I have never seen Cerastes in the wild.

Can you find out where it is likely to have come from by asking the shop about recent imports? This might help with id.

Jim

Doh! Fooled by an egg-eating snake. Very sneaky, Dave!

As you say, it's interesting what turns up. I was called to a dockyard once after the men unloading a container from distant shores were scared off by a reportedly 5 ft cobra, hissing and striking. When I got there it took ages for me to clear out the container (they refused to help) and at the very back was a young Elaphe taeniura, about 18ins long!

As a general response the above concerns, English Nature is well aware of the problems surrounding planning applications and the requirement for information on protected species. Last year we commissioned an investigation of this, and the resulting report - entitled "Development control, local authorities and protected species" - can be viewed here:

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/479.pdf

This demonstrates that there is a wide range of approaches to protected species among planning authorities. There are some interesting (occasionally rather worrying) figures in here about how protected species issues are handled. The contract also identified some examples of good practice, as there are some LPA ecologists working very hard on these issues.

We are currently working on some high-level (not species-specific) guidance on protected species, aimed at planning authorities, which should help to iron out some of the problems. It is my intention also to provide some specific advice on reptiles, but this will have to wait until some other work areas are progressed.

Also note that PPG9 is currently being revised.

Jim

The concerns raised above about genetic and population viability issues for reintroductions are well made. I know the background on the adder reintroduction referred to, and it was unfortunately not planned or implemented to the standards English Nature would normally expect. However, it was - as far as I understand - an opportunistic attempt at reintroducing the species to an area which has seen major declines, to a site where the perceived reasons for extinction had been remedied, and it's been started now so our view is to try to get the best out of it. The local herpetologists working on monitoring and management advice are doing a great job.

The main reason for this post is to alert those of you interested in the principles to a recent publication, the JNCC species translocation policy. This gives some excellent background on what to think about when planning reintroductions. You can see it at:

All reintroductions that the statutory agencies are involved in will now have to work to this guidance.

Jim

(Just made the link active Jim)

The JNCC policy relates more to translocations for proactive conservation purposes (e.g. reintroducing sand lizards to counties where they have gone extinct in recent history).  It specifically mentions that translocations undertaken as mitigation for development require further guidelines, but adds that some of the document does provide useful guidance (the principles in Annex 1). It also states that in situ solutions are preferable to translocation. English Nature will be using the document when drawing up new or revised guidance on reptile and great crested newt mitigation.

Jim

English Nature has just published a report summarising last year's survey of adder and slow-worm status in England, undertaken by Froglife. You can get free hard copies of this report from English Nature's enquiry service (tel 01733 455100/ 01 /02), and it can be dowloaded as a PDF from our website at:

www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/546.pdf

NOTE: All those who contributed to the survey will be sent a hard copy in the post over the next few days.

For your information, the summary and conclusions of the report follow:

Concern about the status of two widespread reptiles, the adder Vipera berus and slow-worm Anguis fragilis, prompted an investigation of their status in England.  A questionnaire survey was widely circulated to gather data, ideally long-term, pertinent to sites known well to observers.  Responses were received for 249 sites.  More than half of the sites were nature reserves or other similarly designated sites.  Most of the population information reported (68 per cent of sites) was based on non-systematic surveys.  However, although non-systematically collected data tended to result in a greater proportion of populations not being scored for size (in the case of the adder) and status (for both the adder and slow-worm), where size and status were estimated, the data did not differ from those collected by systematic techniques, except in the case of the slow-worm for which non-systematic techniques yielded a smaller proportion of population decreases.  A great deal of information was based on long-term knowledge of sites; more than a quarter of the sites had been known to the reporters for more than 15 years and almost half of them had been visited on more than 50 occasions.

Although many populations were regarded as being stable, there is evidence of declines in status nationally in adders but not slow-worms.  The Midlands is a region of particular concern as the adder is in greater decline here than elsewhere and, to a lesser extent, slow-worm population declines are also evident.  Many of the populations reported on were relatively small.  A third of adder and almost a quarter of slow-worm populations were reported to consist of fewer than 10 adults.  There were more decreases and fewer stable adder populations among small (fewer than 10 adults) populations, while the converse was true for the largest populations (more than 50 adults).

Habitat management was the factor most frequently regarded as affecting adder and slow-worm populations.  In spite of reports of individual sites being harmed, habitat management or creation was regarded as a positive factor at more than 40 per cent of adder and more than 50 per cent of slow-worm sites.  The most frequently reported negative factor was public pressure (disturbance), affecting both species.  Persecution was also reported to negatively affect adder populations, whereas building development and predation adversely affected slow-worms.

Just over one third of all sites were isolated.  On isolated sites adders showed more population decreases and fewer stable populations.  There was no detectable effect of site isolation for slow-worms.  Site size also seemed to have some effects on population status.  In both the adder and slow-worm, population decreases were more frequent on small (up to 5ha) sites, and in the adder population stability was more frequent on large (more than 5ha) rather than small sites.

Although this report gathers and quantifies otherwise disparate information about adder and slow-worm populations and the sites that they inhabit, it does not provide a fully representative picture of national status.  The information in this report is biased towards sites with protected status or those that are managed for nature conservation.  The status of both adders and slow-worms on such sites was found to be more favourable than on non-designated sites.  Hence, the true national status of adders and slow-worms may be even less favourable than the reported information suggests. 

Relatively few data pertinent to brownfield sites û a key habitat for slow-worms û were received during the current study.  Hence, the questionnaire was inconclusive with regard to slow-worm status on these potentially threatened sites.

Further conservation measures for adders and greater research into slow-worm status, particularly in brownfield habitats, is recommended.

---

Addressing complex issues like the serious ones raised by Tony Phelps is best done by dealing directly with those involved, as English Nature and others are currently doing. Discussion on an internet forum can be useful in that it raises awareness of issues, but does not directly help progress the problem, and is likely to do the reverse where there is a possibility of legal proceedings. Typically agency staff will not comment in detail on specific cases in this sort of forum with good reason; dealing with casework involves gathering and assessing all the available information. There have already been a number of misleading, inflammatory or demonstrably incorrect statements made during this discussion, as well as some important facts omitted. The nature of newsgroups does not lend itself to sorting through casework as you tend to find the central issue clouded by claims, counterclaims and views that are not informed by specific knowledge of the circumstances. ThatÆs not a criticism of the forum itself, nor of all the people contributing, itÆs just a consequence of the way these things work û youÆll find examples on most newsgroups. For those wishing to advise, help or comment, it is best to speak with those involved in the case instead of, or as well as, posting views on the forum.

I suggest a discussion about the general issues involved in habitat management, creation or restoration might be more productive in the long run û in terms of ensuring ongoing or planned work assists the animals we are all trying to conserve û rather than concentrating on specific cases. Habitat management and its relationship with species conservation raise some very intriguing issues and would probably create a lively exchange. The current case concerns two elements which seem to have become confused in discussion and would be easier to address if separated: (a) the desirability of the habitat management objectives, and (b) the incidental killing of reptiles. The forum would probably attract a better engagement with land managers in this way, and these are the key people to engage with in the current context. I am not trying to stifle the debate on this particular case as there is clearly a need to address TonyÆs worrying observations, which I know are being taken seriously in the area concerned; IÆm simply trying see how the newsgroup can help. Hopefully the current and planned discussions outside cyberspace will allow us to report better news at a later date. Similar species-management conflicts have been resolved previously by similar means.

Jim

New reports on great crested newt mitigation and capture methods

Two important reports on great crested newts have just been published by English Nature. They are available as English Nature Research Reports (free of charge as hard copies from our Enquiry Service û tel 01733 455100, PDFs from our website). The titles, summaries and URLs are reproduced below.

NOTE: If you were invited to participate in the mitigation questionnaire survey in 2002, you will automatically receive a copy of both reports in the post in the next few days (regardless of whether you replied to the questionnaire). If you have changed address since then there might be a problem, so I suggest you ask for copies from our Enquiry Service.

Many thanks to all those who helped with these projects; your information was extremely valuable valuable, and I hope you'll find the resulting research of interest.

English Nature Research Reports Number 575: An evaluation of the effectiveness of great crested newt Triturus cristatus mitigation projects in England, 1990 û 2001. By Paul Edgar and Richard A. Griffiths

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/575.pdf

An analysis of great crested newt mitigation projects carried out between 1990 and 2001 was performed by (1) reviewing all licences issued by English Nature and Defra over this period; and (2) a questionnaire survey of a large sample of mitigation projects. A total of 649 licence files covering some 345 mitigation projects were examined from English Nature files. Over half of these contained no report of work undertaken under the licence. A total of 153 questionnaires were distributed, yielding information on 72 mitigation projects.

There has been a steady increase in the number of licences issued for great crested newt mitigation from less than 10 per year in the early 1990s to over 80 per year by 2000. A relatively small number of consultants have carried out most mitigation work on great crested newts. The proportion of in-situ mitigation projects has increased relative to the number of projects involving ex-situ translocation of newts in recent years. The largest numbers of mitigation projects have been conducted in Cheshire and Lancashire. Most projects lasted longer than one year at an average estimated cost of ú15,000-ú20,000 per project. Over this timeframe some 59% of projects spent up to 80 days on mitigation work, and a further 26% of projects up to 240 days. Building developments were the commonest type of development requiring mitigation. Great crested newts were often overlooked in the planning process and were rarely considered as part of wider Environmental Impact Assessments. Most predevelopment surveys that were commissioned were started less than six months prior to the mitigation work commencing. A variety of methods were used in pre-development surveys, but torch counts were used in 80% of projects.

A range of methods was used to catch newts for mitigation, and the average number of newts translocated per project has declined in recent years. This is probably because (1) an increasing number of smaller newt populations are being identified and accounted for within mitigation work; and (2) more projects are focusing on in-situ population management that makes large-scale translocations unnecessary. The number of newts translocated was positively related to the area destroyed by development; the number of capture methods used; capture effort and overall project effort. Less than half of all projects had any post development monitoring. Moreover, it is difficult to determine what proportions of the actual populations were actually captured or whether these became part of a sustainable populations at the receptor sites because of (1) differences in the survey methodologies used before, during and after the developments; (2) the fact that only a single study used a mark-recapture method to establish population size; (3) difficulty in distinguishing between translocated newts and natural colonizers at the receptor sites; and (4) the short-term nature of most follow-up surveys.

Most receptor sites were on the periphery û or immediately adjacent to û the development site and had some degree of connectivity to other areas of potential newt habitat. The number of new ponds created compensated for the number of known great crested newt ponds destroyed, but did not compensate for the total number of ponds lost. Newly created ponds were generally smaller than those lost to development, so the total surface area of water lost to development created was less than the total surface area of great crested newt ponds lost. Of the ponds that were retained as part of mitigation, less than half underwent any management or enhancement. Overall, slightly less than one-third of the great crested newt terrestrial habitat within the development area was destroyed. However, at least 75% of potential great crested newt habitat was affected in over 30% of projects. No post-development monitoring was carried out in 36% of projects.

Where post development monitoring was carried out it continued for up to five seasons, with most projects carrying out monitoring for up to two years. Adult newts were observed to be present at 87% of the sites surveyed one year after the development with evidence of breeding confirmed at 56% of sites. There are insufficient data to judge whether sites subjected to mitigation contained post-development populations that were self-sustaining in the long-term.

However, many respondents to the questionnaire requested more streamlined processing of licence applications, improved guidance for mitigation activities, and better training of personnel charged with providing advice and decisions on mitigation procedures. Although less than 25% of mitigation projects received any wider publicity, when this was the case the mitigation was generally viewed in a positive light by the media. The new guidance introduced in 2001 (ie after the majority of sample projects were implemented) was viewed by most respondents as positive, and should help to remedy some of these issues. Recommendations are made to further refine advice and procedures.

English Nature Research Reports Number 576: An assessment of the efficiency of capture techniques and the value of different habitats for the great crested newt Triturus cristatus. By Warren Cresswell and Rhiannon Whitworth

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/576.pdf

This report presents the results of a study undertaken on behalf of English Nature to evaluate the efficiency of capture techniques and the value of different habitats for great crested newts. Licence return data were analysed in an attempt to assess the effectiveness of various different elements of the measures used to mitigate the effects of developments on newts. A further aim of the project was to assess the value of different habitats for newts by investigating the numbers captured in a variety of types of land across England. It was intended that the results of these analyses would help to predict development-related impacts and inform trapping, and other mitigation requirements, and thus help inform the development of best practice in mitigation projects involving this species.

The capture data revealed relatively clear associations between the numbers of newts caught and certain habitats. Four habitats were found regularly to predict the number of newts captured: woodland, arable land, post-industrial habitats and hedgerows. There was also a significant correlation between captures and proximity to breeding ponds, and the combination of habitats and proximity to ponds showed an even stronger relationship with numbers of newts captured. Whilst it is likely that newts were actively selecting the more suitable habitat types such as woodland and hedgerows, the role of arable land as a predictor of newt density and occurrence was more likely to be an artefact of the sampling. However, the results did show that arable farmland with a high density of ponds can support large newt populations. More research on newt habitat associations is required in order to investigate a more useful means of predicting newt density and distribution on the basis of habitat or landuse.

The information provided in the licence records was insufficient to provide clear-cut recommendations as to the type of capture method to use in all cases, because season, habitat, distance from a breeding pond, and life stage of the newts were all complicating factors within the analyses. There was, however, a significant positive correlation between the total number of newts captured and both the number of capture methods used and the overall project scores for capture effort.

Pitfall trapping was the most widely employed technique and generated the largest capture totals (excluding captures of larvae). The effectiveness of pitfall trapping varied considerably depending upon whether or not the trapping operation involved the use of a fence around a breeding pond. Only bottle trapping showed a positive correlation between effort and numbers caught for both adults and larvae.

Far more adults were captured than any other life stage. Netting appeared to be the most effective technique for capturing larvae, and can be useful in capturing adult newts also, but is far more efficient when combined with some form of ædraining-downÆ operation. Although slightly more effective at capturing sub-adults, refuges appeared to be generally ineffective at capturing newts in substantial numbers. By contrast, pitfall trapping was more efficient, particularly in capturing adult newts. As with the use of fences and traps in other situations, the over-riding influence appeared to be the proximity to breeding ponds. By far the most captures were recorded within 50m of ponds and few animals were captured at distances greater than 100m.

Generally the results of the various investigations supported the details and advice presented in English NatureÆs Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. However, it was also possible to make the following further recommendations:

ò Where the more suitable habitats occur in conjunction with breeding ponds, it is necessary to consider a comprehensive mitigation programme. However, it would be misleading to discount any habitats if closely associated with breeding ponds.

ò The most comprehensive mitigation, in relation to avoiding disturbance, killing or injury is appropriate within 50m of a breeding pond. It will also almost always be necessary to actively capture newts 50-100m away. However, at distances greater than 100m, there should be careful consideration as to whether attempts to capture newts are necessary or the most effective option to avoid incidental mortality. At distances greater than 200-250m, capture operations will hardly ever be appropriate.

ò The use of multiple capture methods has also been shown to be important, particularly (i) if attempting to catch newts away from breeding ponds, and (ii) where, for whatever reason, the early-season elements of an operation to exclude and relocate newts from a breeding pond have been less effective at keeping adult newts out of the pond, and hence some could go on to breed.

ò The significantly better performance of netting as a technique when associated with draining-down operations should be considered when this approach is being proposed. In addition, the increased effectiveness and usefulness of nocturnal searching of terrestrial habitat in the zone beside drift fences, both during the first warmer, wet nights of the early season, for adults; and during similar climatic conditions from mid- August to the end of September for juveniles should also be recognised.

ò It was clear from the data that consistently, sub-adult life stages were captured less effectively than the others. Unless captures over successive seasons are possible, it is necessary to attempt to capture sub-adults in terrestrial habitats away from ponds. However, the analysis of capture results shows clearly that in almost all cases catching newts at a distance from breeding ponds is labour-intensive and inefficient.

ò It has also been possible to identify a clear relationship between æeffortÆ and capture success for bottle traps, meaning that the more traps employed the more newts will be caught. Thus, recommended trap densities could be increased to accelerate captures in key periods (for example, early in the season, to minimise successful breeding in ponds to be cleared).

ò It has also been possible to identify that the efficient capture of juvenile newts relies on rather ænarrowÆ and potentially very important æwindowsÆ in late summer/early autumn. In addition, because of the size and behaviour of juveniles, the details of some mitigation techniques (particularly the quality of installation of drift fences and pitfall traps) are more critical and these methods can be much less successful than for adult newts.

ò The results supported the idea of not attempting to capture newts in terrestrial habitats at temperatures below 5-6oC. The key finding with regard to the influence of weather patterns was that it is seldom worth attempting to capture newts away from ponds during spells of dry weather between June and mid-August inclusive.

ò Very few of the projects provided a clear test of the comprehensive æcompartmentalisationÆ recommended in English NatureÆs Guidelines. Whilst newts were caught in these circumstances, in most cases only small numbers were caught compared to the lengths of fencing and numbers of traps employed. In addition, assessing the amount of excavation etc., necessary to install large amounts of fencing in areas known to contain newts, raised some concerns about the possibilities of incidental mortality when mechanically installing æcompartmentalisingÆ fencing.

ò Where there were no obvious features to ætargetÆ with fencing, capture success along fences declined sharply with distance from ponds, and captures within the 50-100m zone were generally inefficient. Captures on fences (and by other methods) at distances between 100m and 200-250m from breeding ponds tended to be so low as to raise serious doubts about the efficacy of this as an approach, although a small number of projects did report captures on significant linear features at distances of approximately 150-200m from ponds.

ò It is important that mitigation design is based upon a carefully considered risk assessment, with regard to the likelihood of the development-related activities resulting in disturbance, killing or injury of newts and interference with population processes. The scale of the mitigation and the resources allocated to it also needs to take account of the likely outcomes of different mitigation options in relation to these potential impacts, the numbers of newts involved and the likelihood of success of the various mitigation options.

POST ENDS.

The following report has just been published by English Nature:

English Nature Research Reports Number 585: A population viability analysis for the reintroduction of the pool frog (Rana lessonae) in Britain. By Clair Williams and Richard A. Griffiths

It is available as a hard copy from our Enquiry Service (01733 455100 / 101 / 102) or to download as a PDF from:

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/585.pdf

The reintroduction of the pool frog is currently in the final stages of preparation and further news will be posted at a later date.

Jim

(With apologies for the long post. Read on if you take photos at reptile sites...)

As many of you will know, The Herpetological Conservation Trust and Natural England are currently working on the ôReptile Habitat Management Handbookö. This will be a colour A4 guide aimed at site managers and those who advise them. The emphasis is on providing clear, positive management advice to encourage reptile interests to be considered at a wider range of sites than is currently the case. It will be available as a paper copy as well as a PDF version, and there will be supporting advice on The HCTÆs website.

Paul Edgar is leading on this for The HCT, and I for Natural England. We ran a workshop at the recent Herp WorkersÆ Meeting in Coventry, with lots of excellent ideas from participants on content for (and promotion of) the handbook. The handbook is coming together nicely, and we are now selecting images to illustrate key points.

HereÆs the challenge. There remain a few topics for which we are short of really good images. RAUK seems to be blessed with contributors who know their way round a camera, so we wondered whether you could help us fill in the gaps. The photos need to very clearly demonstrate key issues for reptile management.

We are looking for photos to illustrate the following:

- Wide angle shots showing reptiles in their habitat

- Good close-up shots showing whole animal

- Chalk grassland in good condition for reptiles

- Good wetland sites for grass snakes

- Broadleaved woodland, Caledonian pine forest, wet woodland, good ride structure

- Pasture showing good features for reptiles

- Garden showing good features for reptiles

- Brash heaps

- Changes to reptile habitat over time (esp fixed point photos), demonstrating especially positive or negative trends

- Photos clearly showing how management has damaged or improved a particular habitat feature

- Birds that might benefit from reptile management (eg Dartford warbler, nightjar)

- Small mammals

- Horse-riding impacts on reptile habitats

- Military training impacts.

Simply post any likely images in response to this message. Once weÆve had a look through, we will be in touch about any images which really capture what weÆre after. Obviously, if you have already sent images to Paul (and we thank the many who have) donÆt bother re-posting them here.

We need to get these images together soon, so please post them by 9 March at the latest.

Gemma kindly provided me with some helpful hints about uploading images - please bear these in mind when you post:

a) keep the images to a maximum of 800 pixels width (700 pixels looks best on most monitors)

b) the upload facility is limited to 500 Kb

c) for the purposes of this challenge images should *not* be emailed to admin for mounting on the forums. But you can find a detailed help section on the subject at:

http://www.herpetofauna.co.uk/forum_faqs.asp#Pictures

IÆm afraid we cannot pay for publication of the images (though, of course, all photographers will be duly acknowledged in the handbook). However, we hope that anyone posting images we do use will at least feel a warm glow at seeing their images in what will hopefully be a valued and influential publication. And whatever people post should be of interest to RAUK users, whether the images get used or not.

Many thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to post. Let the challenge begin!

Jim Foster & Paul Edgar.

Reptile Habitat Management Handbook - out now!

Everyone needs a good read now that it's too cold for surveys, and we have the perfect thing! The "Reptile Habitat Management Handbook" has just been published. It's aimed at site managers, and those who advise on habitat management, and gives plenty of guidance aimed at improving the status of snakes and lizards.

Some forum members kindly gave us ideas and photos when we started writing this - many thanks, and we hope that you'll find it useful. The book was published by ARC, with part-funding from Natural England and the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation. Full details are: Edgar, P., Foster, J. & Baker, J. (2010). Reptile Habitat Management Handbook. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Bournemouth. ISBN 978-0-9566717-0-7.

Over the winter, we'll be running a jointly funded (Amphibian and Reptile Conservation and Natural England) series of training workshops for habitat managers. The aim will be to get the main messages out to those who are interested to learn more about incorporating reptile needs into site management. This is aimed at generalist site managers rather than those who already have a reptile focus to their work. We feel that just producing the handbook is only a start; real benefits for reptiles will need persistent promotion of the guidance and follow-up work, hence the workshops.

How do you get a copy?

One could be in the post to you already! Over the next couple of weeks, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation are doing a mass mail-out to a wide range of organisations working on habitat management.  Everyone who contributed a photo that was used in the final version will also get a copy soon.

You can see a low resolution PDF version at: http://www.argukjb.org.uk/Downloads/RHMH%20LowRes.pdf

A high resolution version will be up soon at the ARC website: www.arc-trust.org

To get a free copy you can turn up to one of the conferences over the winter (eg ARC/BHS Scientific Meeting on 5 December), where there will be copies available. You can also request a copy directly from ARC - email enquiries@arc-trust.org or tel 01202 391319 (cost ú3.00 to cover postage and handling; please enquire for bulk order costs).

How can forum members help?

Two ways spring to mind:

(a)  By telling site managers and land managing organisations in your local patch about the handbook. Use its guidance to help enhance management for reptiles on sites that you visit, where necessary.

(b)  By letting us have feedback on both format and content; anything missing, or advice that you think could be improved? The handbook gives a feedback email for this so that we can keep all your comments together.

Jim

Robert:

- It's best if you get in touch with ARC (details as per my post) to get a copy. They are handling the distribution and will be pleased to send you one. Indeed, all my copies have gone already!

- Regarding your company attending training: Thanks for your interest. This may be possible, though we want to give first refusal to generalist habitat managers (Wildlife Trusts, Local Authorities, Natural England staff etc). To us, this seems to be the primary "audience", since we want to influence land management that may currently not consider reptiles, across a wide area. Once that audience has had a chance to attend, we'll offer any remaining places to others. I hope you'll appreciate this. Again, ARC will be the main contact as they'll be delivering the courses, though we (NE) will be advising.

Gemma: Many thanks. Hope you like it!

Jim