a more unusual hobby shed find

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

One for Sorrow …etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_for_Sorrow_(nursery_rhyme)

MichaelG.

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

They are very clever and resourceful birds.

Given that we regularly get 3 or 4 in the garden that rhyme is disproven as I’m 80 & the wife is 82!

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

Illegal or not, some time ago, when I found a bat hobbling past the workshop with one wing entangled in a thick spider web, I unhooked the web, and then liberated it, a few hundred yards away, where there is a bat colony, in trees.

It didn’t seem to believe its luck; hopped a few feet, then a short flight, before it took off and flew away at full speed.

Howard

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posting this without comment:

.

.

 

MichaelG.

[Chris CrewParticipant @chriscrew66644]

Please don’t misunderstand me, I have every respect for wildlife and the environment but I have never quite understood the reverence that is afforded to bats. We have just had a report from the chairman of the now fairly pointless extravagance of HS2 that an additional £100million was required to build a ‘bat shed’ so that bats are not to be disturbed by the passing of high-speed trains. Apparently the organisations that are responsible for curating the environment, Natural England and the Environment Agency, are now trying to distance themselves from the demands that they both made which pushed up the costs to the taxpayer.

When HS2 was first proposed I was generally in favour of the new railway but as the project progressed it became apparent that it was going to be ‘over-engineered’ to cater for higher line speeds on slab track just, it has been postulated, to ‘get one over’ on the French whose design speed is lower on conventional track. This notion may contain a grain of truth and sowed the seeds for the emerging financial catastrophe that the taxpayer is having to pay for with absolutely no prospect of a return on the investment. No wonder that the project has been largely cancelled and rendered all but pointless, IMO, in its current configuration.

So, back to ‘bats in the belfry’! Evidently the species that a £100m is being spent to protect is not endangered in any way and, as in all things naturel, would probably have continued to exist quite happily in its present location or moved to another more to its liking because nature usually finds a way. I don’t know, but I suspect the French or the Spanish didn’t impose such costs as this upon their railway engineers when building their impressive and extremely successful high-speed networks of which I have had the pleasure of using on several occasions because we no longer fly if it can be avoided. Anyway, you can read the report here, if the moderator will permit, as there is no paywall to overcome.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/07/cost-of-shed-to-protect-bat-colony-near-hs2-has-topped-100m-chair-says

[Chris Crew]

On Chris Crew Said:

Please don’t misunderstand me, I have every respect for wildlife and the environment but I have never quite understood the reverence that is afforded to bats. We have just had a report from the chairman of the now fairly pointless extravagance of HS2 that an additional £100million was required to build a ‘bat shed’ so that bats are not to be disturbed by the passing of high-speed trains. Apparently the organisations that are responsible for curating the environment, Natural England and the Environment Agency, are now trying to distance themselves from the demands that they both made which pushed up the costs to the taxpayer.

When HS2 was first proposed I was generally in favour of the new railway but as the project progressed it became apparent that it was going to be ‘over-engineered’ to cater for higher line speeds on slab track just, it has been postulated, to ‘get one over’ on the French whose design speed is lower on conventional track. This notion may contain a grain of truth and sowed the seeds for the emerging financial catastrophe that the taxpayer is having to pay for with absolutely no prospect of a return on the investment. No wonder that the project has been largely cancelled and rendered all but pointless, IMO, in its current configuration.

 

So, back to ‘bats in the belfry’! Evidently the species that a £100m is being spent to protect is not endangered in any way and, as in all things naturel, would probably have continued to exist quite happily in its present location or moved to another more to its liking because nature usually finds a way. I don’t know, but I suspect the French or the Spanish didn’t impose such costs as this upon their railway engineers when building their impressive and extremely successful high-speed networks of which I have had the pleasure of using on several occasions because we no longer fly if it can be avoided. Anyway, you can read the report here, if the moderator will permit, as there is no paywall to overcome.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/07/cost-of-shed-to-protect-bat-colony-near-hs2-has-topped-100m-chair-says

I don’t want to wade into a debate that might be considered none of my business, but just to correct some of what you say.

“the species that a £100m is being spent to protect is not endangered in any way, ”

A quick search shows that in fact it is a rare bat. I quote from a few sourches , including Bats.org and Wikipedia

“Bechstein’s bats.
The Bechstein’s bat is one of our rarest bats, found in parts of southern England and south east Wales. It is found almost exclusively in woodland habitat. The destruction of ancient mature forests along with intensive woodland management practices has led to a decline in its numbers.”

you say

“I suspect the French or the Spanish didn’t impose such costs as this ”

But again from a quick Google search

“Bechstein’s bat is also listed on Annex II of the EC Habitats Directive,
Bechstein’s bat is protected under the European Habitats Directive”

So if the authorities in France and Spain are ignoring any risk to the bats then they are doing so illegally. I suspect they are in fact protecting the bats too.

And you also say

“Natural England and the Environment Agency, are now trying to distance themselves from the demands that they both made ”

But the articles makes no such claim. It quotes Nature England as saying “Natural England has not required HS2 to adopt this structure, nor advised on the design or cost. Our input has been to comment on whether the proposed mitigations will work.”

 

[old foolParticipant @old-fool]

I’ve not seen bats for many years. I live in an old terraced house with the kitchen-back/bedroom sticking out the back. Many years ago I used to sit in my middle bedroom watching bats flying right up to the window then doing a right-angle turn just in front of me. I spent many hours sitting there on balmy summer evenings, marvelling at how they turn at full speed like that. They used to roost in nearby farm buildings, now a barn conversion! The work was held up for several months while someone sorted out what to do with the bats. Don’t know where they were moved to but a sad loss to the area

Bob

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Just an idle thought.

Bats seem fond of living in caves and tunnels etc if this tunnel is built first and the bats take up residence then trains may be banned from running through it.

Sorry I just couldn’t resist that 🤭

We only saw two bats flying around our trees last year and my detector did not locate any on suitable evenings this year.

[old martParticipant @oldmart]

Up until 1983, I lived in a Tudor cottage and up in the loft, which was disused, but had lots of wattle and daube walling to make several small rooms, there were about 30 bats living. The last time that I went up there was to remove about a dozen dustbins full of hay that birds had brought in nestmaking which had fallen down making it difficult to lift the loft door. The bats never seemed to be disturbed by my presence.

[bernard towers]

On bernard towers Said:

And as for photos I carry this in my wallet

You have the right to keep any photographs you take unless confiscated via a warrant. You do not need permission from your subject to take their photograph. You own the copyright to any photographs you take, not the subject. You cannot be removed or restricted from taking photographs from a public place.

As an amateur photographer myself I’m aware of this. Sadly Ive seen lots of videos on YouTube of police officers and “security” ignoring this. If push comes to shove they will use anti terror laws.

Try standing outside a police station taking pictures and start a timer on your phone. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for you to be asked what you’re up to.

[Author]

Posts