Great crested newts

[NatureNurd]

Do you know anything about why my two smallest baby palmate newts were not growing? They were eaten by their brothers and sisters!
How can I stop the three bigger baby newts from eating the next smallest baby?

Catherine

[lizard orchid]

Originally Posted by NatureNurd

Do you know anything about why my two smallest baby palmate newts were not growing? They were eaten by their brothers and sisters!
How can I stop the three bigger baby newts from eating the next smallest baby?

Catherine

One idea might be is to separate them. I have had a friend who did this via tanks and fed them on water fleas, bloodworms. These food items might be obtained from certain pet shops.
Maybe have the smaller newt you could have in a tank and the bigger ones left in the pond.

Brian Laney, Northamptonshire County Recorder for Reptiles and Amphibians.

[N0z]

What he said above and if you havent got alot of vegetation where you have them just add alot more extra plants which will provide more hunting opportunities and will give them cover

[GCN lova]

Originally Posted by King Edward

To be honest, the legal protection afforded to Great Crested Newts is quite over the top, to the extent that it's just about illegal to even look at them (e.g. using a torch at night). I'm not aware of any evidence that the species is at all threatened by such minor practices, rather than by the much more serious problem of habitat destruction which should be the primary focus of the law. Of course, there is the potential problem of disease transmission from site to site via e.g. pond nets, but that's probably more likely to happen during legal, licensed surveys anyway.

100 percent agree. nearlly every park in kent says they have GCNs even though i dont see any. i think the palmate newt deserves more protection than these GCNs (though they still deserve protection in some areas).

[Dogghound]

Originally Posted by King Edward

To be honest, the legal protection afforded to Great Crested Newts is quite over the top, to the extent that it's just about illegal to even look at them (e.g. using a torch at night). I'm not aware of any evidence that the species is at all threatened by such minor practices, rather than by the much more serious problem of habitat destruction which should be the primary focus of the law. Of course, there is the potential problem of disease transmission from site to site via e.g. pond nets, but that's probably more likely to happen during legal, licensed surveys anyway.

I would seriously hope not, there are strict hygiene procedures to follow when surveying for GCN. It would be extremely poor practice for a trained consultant to do this. I know if I attempted to do this and was found out I would be in serious trouble. I would think it more likely that none-professionals are going to do this through none survey work, as they are less likely to have had the importance of it drummed into them. Not sure if you have a GCN license but if you do(or know about the process) you will appreciate that you need to prove competence in gaining one.

Regarding the rest of your post, I can see where you are coming from to an extent with the legislation on handling for example. However the rest seems perfectly reasonable to me. GCN may be present in huge numbers at a given site but within 2 years the whole population could be gone. A small sensitive site could suffer through removal of breeding adults, if it was isolated then you could easily see a population collapse.

Which parts of the legislation do you think is too harsh? disturbance, possession, transportation, capture, killing, injuring, trading, damaging/destroying breeding sites? These laws have been implemented to safeguard a species which in many areas continues to decline. They protect the newt as well as the habitat.

[King Edward]

If you read the first few posts in the thread, you see the impression people have that something so minor as carefully picking up and moving the odd newt a short distance out of harms way constitutes a major crime. Likewise, checking a few water plant leaves for eggs is similarly illegal, as is scanning round with a torch to check for the presence of larvae/adults. Is this really sensible? More to the point, would a prosecution for such an offence be in the public interest?

Regarding disease transmission, the point about licensed surveyors is that they're more likely to be visiting numerous ponds over a wide area, reusing nets, trays, boots etc., so the potential for transmission of disease is inherently more likely. I'm sure the guidelines are fine in theory, but are they always followed in practice by everyone? Competence in gaining a licence is all very well, but that is also the case for motoring - do all drivers adhere to the Highway Code after passing?

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the prohibition of killing/injury and habitat damage should be relaxed, these are important. Keeping animals in captivity is more debatable - on the one hand there is the potential for local populations to be denuded, but on the other there is the potential threat from hybridisation with alien crested newt varieties imported as a legal substitute species in the pet trade.

At the other end of the scale, however, which is what I was referring to in my original post, I don't think that 'pond dipping' type activities involving temporary capture/release of a few individuals could be considered anything more than a very minor, localised threat to the species (and then again, the main problem is likely to be in the form of local habitat damage to e.g. the pond vegetation, rather than to individual newts). 'Disturbance' of a newt is quite different to, for instance, disturbance of nesting birds.