Be careful at Badger Setts

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by SheffieldLass

I think you misunderstood me ... My post was nothing about whether one did or did not have a right to be on the land ... just pointing out that there are plenty of badger setts very close to well used public footpaths and that badgers are often very well used to human presence.

My sincere apologies if I misunderstood the point you were making - perhaps I should have quoted from Dorts' earlier post in which it was seemingly suggested that obtaining landowner's consent to visit the sett "....would stop virtually all problems such as yours" - unless I misunderstood that post as well

Jeff
(Schedule 1 Licence holder for Kingfishers, Barn Owls and Avocets)

[Doggle Avaddit]

[quote=eeyore;781408]thats as maybe , but i'm fairly sure what matters is the definition in the badger act rather than the OED
QUOTE]


Sorry for being lazy, but it would take me ages to try and locate that relevent info.

Can you post a link, or whatever?


Cheers.


Edit: found this


Interfering with badger setts..

A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he interferes with a badger sett by doing any of the following things—
(a)damaging a badger sett or any part of it;.
(b)destroying a badger sett;.
(c)obstructing access to, or any entrance of, a badger sett;.
(d)causing a dog to enter a badger sett; or.
(e)disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett,


But still doesn't define "disturbing"

[BloomingMarvellous]

Originally Posted by FUDGEY

I dont want to have a ding dong with you mate I just cant be bothered, but you are not educated enough on Badger behaviour to make comments like this if this is what you believe. Three years ago I read a book called Out of the darkness by an author who used the name Chris Ferris. This wasnt her real name as she had ti hide her identity. What that lady did for Badgers left me gobsmacked and she inspired me with her ways. She got to know these Badgers so well that they were akin to someone and their pet dog. They would cuddle up to her and let her help them when injured. A lot more things that were hard to believe, but after observing the Sett I was at for nearly 3 years I could see that this was a possibility. The animals were definitely getting familiar with me and getting to know my individual scent and had a lot of trust in me. I never pushed it and let them come to me and that is the honest truth. You can have a go as much as you want and I dont know why you feel the need as I dont recall ever having a pop at you in the past so im a bit lost why you feel the need? I guess some people in life get a kick out of doing these things and just cant help it. Any way I wont be playing that game so you are wasting your time with me. Away to watch Springwatch now and once again a huge ty for every one that has offered support and advice on this thread, much appreciated folks, thanks a million.

Your dead right Fudgey, I know very little about Badgers, but the way you behave around them, makes me think you know even less about them.

Cuddle a Badger, don't you know how stupid that sounds.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by BloomingMarvellous

Your dead right Fudgey, I know very little about Badgers, but the way you behave around them, makes me think you know even less about them.

Cuddle a Badger, don't you know how stupid that sounds.

I think its fair to say that chris ferris (who wrote 'out of the darkness' and 'the darkness is light enough' - The books fudgey cites- and is a renowned expert on badger behaviour working with both NFBG and the police) knows considerably more about badgers than you do.

(the same could be said for monica edwards who reports similar behaviour in 'badgers of punch bowl farm', and 'badger valley')

the only person who sounds stupid here is you - if you know very little about badgers why are you sounding off about something you know nothing about. ? I know a fair bit about badgers, though not in the expert league, but I know more about Trolls and can recognise Troll behaviour when I see it

If you dont have anything useful to contribute to the debate or fudgey's predicament perhaps you could do us all a favour and keep your mouth shut

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit

I think we need to clarify what "disturb" actually means. (in this case what it legally means)

Here's the OED definition:
definition of disturb from Oxford Dictionaries Online

quote:
interfere with the normal arrangement or functioning of

You have just admitted the badgers are becoming familiar with you, so in effect you are "interfering with the normal arrangement or functioning of [said animal]". They are now exhibiting "unnatural" behaviour.

I'm no legal expert, but I think you might have a few problems if this goes to court.

I'm afraid this is a rather over-simplistic approach to the definition of "disturb" or "disturbance" in relation to wildlife protection legislation.

As a matter of legal interpretation and if Fudgey's case goes to court (which personally I think/hope unlikely) it will be for the court to decide whether or not it can be proved that Fudgey's actions constituted "disturbance" within the context of the legislation concerned.

So far as I'm aware, none of the UK's wildlife protection legislation contains a statutory definition of "disturbance" and as this issue has not been addressed in any of the "disturbance" cases taken to court thus far, there is precious little case law to offer guidance in defining this and many of the other terms used in the legislation - a point which ACPO (The Association of Chief Police Officers) expressed some concern about in their evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Environmental Audit during their review of wildlife crime way back in 2004 and when they said (in relation to wildlife crime and the related legislation) -
"The small number of cases being dealt with by the courts has resulted in few stated cases and as a consequence many of the provisions in both acts and regulations are not understood."

However, the recent (Jan. 2011) Supreme Court of the UK case of Morge v Hampshire County Council does, although concerned with the European Habitats Directive, offer some useful guidance on the meaning of the term
"disturbance" in relation to wildlife protection legislation - see here for a press summary of the case - http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decid...essSummary.pdf - and demonstrates just how difficult it can be to correctly interpret statute.

Incidentally, anyone wanting to see the full 32 page judgement of the 5 Law Lords who heard the case (and gave a divided opinion!) can find it here -
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decid...0_Judgment.pdf

The question of "what is disturbance" is also addressed on page 4 of the Guide to the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code - presumably written under legal guidance - and which offers the following definition -

"The result of direct or indirect interaction with people that changes
the behaviour of an animal or changes the environment, which in turn
affects the well-being or survival of an animal in the short, medium or
long term"

the latter part of that definition making it clear (as does the Supreme Court case mentioned) that in the context of wildlife protection legislation "disturbance" is something which has a negative impact on the animal's well-being or survival.

See here for the full Guide to the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code -
http://www.marinecode.org/documents/Guide-web.pdf

So that on the basis of what is known from this thread, proving actual "disturbance" in Fudgey's case is likely to be far less clear cut than some people seem to think

Jeff
(Schedule 1 Licence holder for Kingfishers, Barn Owls and avocets)

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit

Can you post a link, or whatever?

as you point out there is no actual definition of disturbance within the 1992 act - probably because the drafters felt that it needed to be established by case law and precedent (as with many British laws)

However the NE guidance on interpreting the act says (my emboldening)

Disturbance is therefore something less than what might otherwise be
considered damage to a sett - this distinction is recognised by the existence oftwo separate offences in the Act; one where there is damage to a sett and onefor disturbance to a badger occupying a sett. However, it is also something morethan limited noise or activity near a sett at levels which badgers commonlytolerate, without apparently being disturbed....

The offence of disturbing a badger whilst it is occupying a sett has given rise toconsiderable debate over the years. The issue presents problems, not only indetermining what might constitute disturbance, but also in proving that any
badger had actually been disturbed.

However, some general conclusions about the tolerance of badgers to potentialdisturbance at or near their setts can be drawn from their status throughout muchof England and the situations in which they can be found. For example, badgerslive in urban as well as rural areas, they are widespread and common, and theycreate setts under roads and railways and in urban gardens well used by children and pets. They therefore appear to be able to withstand significant amounts ofnoise or activity near to their setts without apparently being disturbed.

full text here http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Ima...tcm6-11814.pdf

I'm aware that NE only covers England , but i would expect the guidance from SNH and CCW to be broadly similar

based on the above it would suggest that feeding or habituating badgers is not disturbance per se if the badgers do not appear to have been disturbed, and also the offence is disturbing a badger while it is occupying a sett - clearly a badger feeding from fudgeys hand on the surface is not occupying a sett at the time, so this cannot constitute disturbance within the meaning of the act

(in my opinion - the usual disclaimer that i'm not a lawyer, dont base a defence on these views etc applies)

edit: Jeff posted while i writing - if our interpretations differ it is likely that his is the more correct one, on account of how he actually is a lawyer etc...

[BloomingMarvellous]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I think its fair to say that chris ferris (who wrote 'out of the darkness' and 'the darkness is light enough' - The books fudgey cites- and is a renowned expert on badger behaviour working with both NFBG and the police) knows considerably more about badgers than you do.

(the same could be said for monica edwards who reports similar behaviour in 'badgers of punch bowl farm', and 'badger valley')

the only person who sounds stupid here is you - if you know very little about badgers why are you sounding off about something you know nothing about. ? I know a fair bit about badgers, though not in the expert league, but I know more about Trolls and can recognise Troll behaviour when I see it

If you dont have anything useful to contribute to the debate or fudgey's predicament perhaps you could do us all a favour and keep your mouth shut

Cuddle a Badger, don't you know how stupid that sounds, I think I'm just repeating myself here.

[Doggle Avaddit]

Thanks Jeff and Eeyore for clarifying that such things are not really clarifiable!

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by BloomingMarvellous

Cuddle a Badger, don't you know how stupid that sounds, I think I'm just repeating myself here.

as i said the only thing that sounds stupid here is your insistence in commenting on things about which you know nothing - both Chris Ferris and Monica Edwards, and Jim Crumley (who wrote 'badgers on the highland edge') report on badgers that climb up them, nose into their pockets, and greet them by nosing their boots and climbing into their laps.

whether this degree of habituation is desirable is debateable (though all three say that the badgers recognised them personally and were not habituated to humans in general) but it is certainly possible

so before you feel the need to repeat yourself again , perhaps some research might be indicated.