logo
British bats are a conservation success story

British bats are a conservation success story

Hindustan Times13-07-2025
Soon after sunset, a furious clicking can be heard at Hanningfield Reservoir in Essex. Some clicks emanate from bat detectors, which convert the high-frequency sound waves emitted by flying bats into noises that humans can hear. Others come from thumb counters, held by volunteers who are trying to tally the bats that pour out of a building. The racket resembles electronic music of a challenging type.
Two decades ago squeaks at Hanningfield alerted conservationists to the presence of soprano pipistrelles, which are among the smallest bats in Britain. The roost has become busier, swelling from a summer peak of around 500 pipistrelles in the early 2010s to at least 2,000 today. It is an extreme example of a general trend. The recent success of bats in Britain is a conservation triumph, but it suggests an uncomfortable conclusion. Laws that make building homes and infrastructure intolerably hard can have a good effect.
Bats are much harder to tally than birds, owing to their nocturnal habits and inaudible calls. Counts of hibernating, roosting and feeding bats show different trends. But almost all of the common species of bat are more numerous than they were when reliable measurement began in the late 1990s. The greater horseshoe bat, named for the shape of its nose, has tripled in number. Birds are faring considerably less well.
Bob Stebbings, who started studying bats as a child in the early 1950s, reckons that Britain still has many fewer than it once did. In the 18th century, the Rev Gilbert White claimed to see hundreds of bats at once over the River Thames. Poisonous timber treatments, bad weather and more intensive agriculture killed many bats in the second half of the 20th century. 'The bad bits of land that had rotting haystacks and old farm machinery disappeared,' says Mr Stebbings.
Bats can live for decades, generally have just one pup a year and form colonies. As a result, the accidental or deliberate eradication of a big maternity roost can set a species back for years. Bats are probably reviving in Britain because environmental laws have made such shocks rare. They seem to resist white-nose syndrome, caused by a fungus, better than American bats.
They have long been associated with magic, especially the dodgy kind. In 'Macbeth', the witches chuck bat fur into their stew. In Bram Stoker's novel, Dracula turns into a bat. The Victorian fascination with vampire bats (which live in Latin America) did not help. But bats would probably have disturbed anyway. As birdlike creatures that lack feathers, they strike some as untidy and unnatural.
These days bats have the magical power of blocking housing and infrastructure, or raising its cost. Norfolk County Council is struggling to build a major road near Norwich because of a colony of rare barbastelle bats. Nearby, in Thetford, people who oppose the redevelopment of a council estate have installed dozens of bat boxes, hoping to entice some of the protected creatures. Notoriously, a 'bat protection structure' is being built over the new hs2 railway line in Buckinghamshire at a cost of over £100m ($135m).
For a government eager for growth, this is unacceptable. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has urged builders to 'stop worrying about the bats and the newts'. A planning bill that is working its way through Parliament will weaken legal protections for bats and other creatures. Developers should find it easier to demolish habitat in one place, provided they pay into a fund that enhances it somewhere else.
The Bat Conservation Trust argues that the bill creates a 'licence to kill'. But the charity, and other wildlife outfits that oppose the legislation, have a problem. Although bats currently enjoy powerful legal protections, they have few close friends. The bct has 5,410 members, though other people belong to local bat groups. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has almost 1.2m. Ms Reeves would not dare to speak casually of cuckoos or curlews.
Public attitudes to bats have warmed over the years, though not to the point of adoration. A Greek study of attitudes to 12 species found that western barbastelle bats came dead last for attractiveness, below black vultures and fire-bellied toads. A study of Americans put bats roughly level with sharks. Cute in real life, bats can appear diabolical in photographs, making them the opposite of human supermodels.
Technology could make them more popular. Bat detectors are becoming cheaper and better. They tell people what kind of bats are around them, and can turn their inaudible sound waves into pretty patterns on a screen. From there, it is a short step to recognising a few species by sight. Noctules rise early and fly high and straight; pipistrelles flit at tree height; Daubenton's bats fly low and skilfully over water, plucking insects off the surface with their feet. The better you know something, the more you worry about it.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New Zealand Air Force battles freezing cold and darkness to rescue 3 from US Antarctic base
New Zealand Air Force battles freezing cold and darkness to rescue 3 from US Antarctic base

Economic Times

time10 minutes ago

  • Economic Times

New Zealand Air Force battles freezing cold and darkness to rescue 3 from US Antarctic base

Synopsis New Zealand's Vayu Sena successfully rescued three individuals from an American research facility in Antarctica. The operation occurred on August 5 and 6, 2025. One person needed urgent medical attention. Two others also required medical assistance. The challenging mission involved flying in freezing temperatures and complete darkness. The rescued individuals arrived in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Wednesday. Reuters Royal New Zealand Air Force personnel undertake a medical evacuation of three people from McMurdo Station in Antarctica, in this handout photo released on August 6, 2025. New Zealand Defence Force/Handout via REUTERS New Zealand's air force evacuated three people from a United States research base in Antarctica on Wednesday (August 6, 2025). The air force stated that it was a high-risk operation in freezing temperatures and perpetual darkness. The Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) said in a statement that one person requiring urgent medical care and two others needing medical attention were taken on the rescue flight from the McMurdo Station on Tuesday (August 5, 2025). The aircraft landed in the New Zealand city of Christchurch on Wednesday morning. However, the New Zealand Air Force, in its statement, provided no details of the medical emergency or Scott, a New Zealand Air Commodore, said the extreme cold and landing on a runway of ice in the dark make mid-winter flights to Antarctica one of the most challenging tasks an air crew can perform."(It is) an extremely challenging environment to fly in on night vision goggles due to the extreme weather conditions, which are highly changeable at this time of year and make accurate forecasting a challenge," he said, as quoted by at the McMurdo Station fell as low as -24 Celsius (-11 Fahrenheit) on Tuesday, hampering the 20-hour mission that took place in the complete darkness of the Antarctic winter. The U.S. Chargé d'Affaires for New Zealand, Melissa Sweeney, said the evacuation had been carried out "flawlessly." "We are so very grateful. Our Kiwi partners didn't hesitate to undertake this mission in one of the most unforgiving environments on Earth. Their skill and readiness are truly world-class," she said.

80 years of Hiroshima: When Japan burned, but the Soviets got the message
80 years of Hiroshima: When Japan burned, but the Soviets got the message

India Today

time10 hours ago

  • India Today

80 years of Hiroshima: When Japan burned, but the Soviets got the message

Eighty years ago, on August 6, 1945, a city woke up to a regular morning -- and was turned into dust within seconds. Hiroshima, Japan, became the first place in the world to be attacked with an atomic what many still don't know is that behind this strike wasn't just revenge or war strategy. It was rumour that fuelled it -- a fearful political strike in a rapidly shifting world WORLD AT WAR, BUT JAPAN WAS ALREADY FALLINGBy mid-1945, the world was exhausted. World War II had been dragging on for six bloody years. Nazi Germany had already surrendered in May. Field Marshall Keitel signs German surrender terms in Berlin, May 8, 1945 (Photo: WIkimedia Commons) In the East, Japan was cornered, isolated, and nearly defeated. Most of its fleet had been destroyed, and American firebombing had reduced Tokyo and several other cities to surrender seemed like a matter of time. Yet, on that fateful August morning, the US chose to drop a new kind of weapon -- something the world had never seen before -- on a largely civilian Hiroshima in 1948 (Photo: AFP) THE SCIENTIST WHO UNLEASHED A MONSTERA few years earlier, a group of scientists -- many of them refugees who had fled from Hitler's Europe -- had begun secretly working in the US on something terrifying: a bomb that could unleash the destructive power of the atom. It was called the Manhattan of the key scientists was a brilliant physicist named J Robert Oppenheimer. He had studied ancient Indian texts, and after the first successful test of the bomb in July 1945, he quoted the Bhagavad Gita: 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'The line, uttered by Lord Krishna in the epic, captured exactly what he felt -- power, fear, and a sense that something irreversible had just bomb worked, only too well. THE GERMAN SHADOW THAT LOOMED LARGEBut here's the twist. The US didn't just race to make the bomb to defeat Japan. Japan was near surrender, fact, they feared Germany might be building one first. German scientists had discovered nuclear fission back in 1938. The fear was that if Hitler got to the bomb first, the consequences would be fear, which was never quite confirmed, pushed Americans to invest billions, round up the best scientists in the world, and rush the project to by the time the bomb was ready, Hitler was already dead. Germany had surrendered. Japan was still fighting, yes, but not strong enough to pose any real threat to the Allies. So why drop the bomb? Little Boy atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima () THE POWER GAME BEYOND THE WARThe answer lies not just in what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but in what came the time the mushroom clouds cleared, a new rivalry was quietly igniting. The United States and the Soviet Union, once uneasy allies against Hitler, were already sizing each other up for the next global showdown. The war had ended, but the game for dominance had only just what better way to tilt the board than by unveiling the deadliest weapon the world had ever seen?Historians have long debated whether Japan's surrender was the only reason the bomb was used. One of the most prominent voices, Gar Alperovitz, in his landmark book Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, argued that the bomb served a second purpose: to show the Soviet Union exactly who was boss in the post-war to Alperovitz, 'gaining diplomatic leverage against the Soviet Union was a major consideration in the atomic bombing.' HL Stimson (l) and Eisenhower (r) (Photos: Wikimedia Commons) That line of thinking wasn't limited to historians. Inside the US government, similar views were brewing. Henry Stimson, then Secretary of War, described the bomb in his memoirs not just as a military tool, but as a 'psychological weapon,' designed to create a 'tremendous shock' that would shake Japan into surrender and show America's strength on the world Stimson worried that flaunting the bomb 'ostentatiously on our hip' would only fuel Soviet paranoia, and trigger an arms race. He was General Dwight D Eisenhower, who had commanded Allied forces in Europe, later admitted that he believed the bombings weren't necessary to end the war. Japan, he said, was already on the verge of unease grew stronger as he realised the real audience for the atomic spectacle might not have been Japan at all -- but Joseph Stalin, watching from yes, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ended a war. But they may have also started something else: the Cold War. And in that light, the bombs were not just about victory. They were a signal. A threat. A warning shot fired into a new world order. Smoke cloud after nuclear attack on Hiroshima (Photo: AFP) THE CITY THAT NEVER SAW IT COMINGAt 8:15 am on August 6, 1945, a US bomber named Enola Gay dropped a single bomb over Hiroshima. It was called 'Little Boy'. In seconds, the city vanished in a blinding evaporated where they stood. Buildings were flattened. Rivers boiled. Around 80,000 people died instantly. Thousands more would die later from radiation and days later, the US dropped another bomb on Nagasaki. Combined deaths reached nearly 200,000. Japan surrendered soon even today, the question remains: was it even necessary? Japan's Mamoru Shigemitsu signs the Instrument of Surrender, officially ending the Second World War 1945 (Photo: Wikimedia Commons) THE REGRET THAT CAME LATERAlbert Einstein, the genius whose theories laid the groundwork for nuclear physics, had once written to US President Franklin D Roosevelt urging him to develop the atom bomb, fearing Nazi Germany would get there first. Written with Leo Szilrd and Eugene Wigner, it warned that Hitler might weaponise he never worked on the Manhattan Project, it was Einstein's 1939 letter to Roosevelt that helped set the whole project in the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein deeply regretted his role. He famously said, 'Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing for the bomb.' Franklin D Roosevelt (l) and Oppenheimer (r) (Photos: Wikimedia Commons) He called signing the letter the 'one great mistake of my life.' He co-founded the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists and helped draft the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, warning the world: 'Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.'Even Oppenheimer, celebrated and feared as the 'father of the atomic bomb,' faced a storm of guilt. In a post-war meeting with the US President, he reportedly said, 'Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands.'REMEMBERING HIROSHIMA 80 YEARS LATERToday, Hiroshima stands as both a thriving city and a chilling reminder of what happens when science and power fall into the wrong hands. Peace memorials, survivor testimonies, and museums keep the memory alive -- not for revenge, but as a warning. devastated city of Hiroshima after the first atomic bomb was dropped by a US Air Force B-29 on August 6, 1945 (Photo: AFP) Eighty years on, the world is still struggling with the legacy of that day. Some 12,500 nuclear warheads still exist worldwide. Nations still test missiles. Tensions still rise and fall, much like they did in atom bomb on Hiroshima didn't win a war. Politics did, along with the fear of what Hitler might build, inspired by rumours, and paid for in remains a symbol: scientific ambition, political expedience, and moral reckoning interwoven into one lethal moment. The story still confronts us: will we keep chasing death, or learn to choose differently?- Ends

NASA and Congress Wrestle Over the Space Station—and How to Replace It
NASA and Congress Wrestle Over the Space Station—and How to Replace It

Hindustan Times

time11 hours ago

  • Hindustan Times

NASA and Congress Wrestle Over the Space Station—and How to Replace It

The fight over government spending is reaching 250 miles above the Earth's surface. The International Space Station for more than two decades has been the centerpiece of human spaceflight at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Government leaders are now jousting over funding for the ISS, while NASA is signaling it will start pulling back on some station activities ahead of its planned decommissioning in 2030, when private space stations are envisioned taking its place. Last month, NASA directed Boeing to cut back on station-related services that the aerospace giant manages under a longstanding contract, according to a letter viewed by The Wall Street Journal. Officials at the agency are studying sending smaller crews to the ISS instead of the typical four, translating to less onboard research. Sean Duffy, NASA's acting administrator, on Monday laid out a plan that would provide agency support for a wider range of private stations under development. In a memo viewed by the Journal, Duffy said the approach would give NASA and station developers more flexibility. 'It is important to move quickly,' he said in the memo. The order was one of Duffy's first moves since President Trump appointed him to run NASA on a temporary basis in July, a role he is handling in addition to leading the Transportation Department. NASA is famed for sending astronauts to the moon, but the space station has been the focal point of its high-profile human missions in recent decades. NASA and international crews have continuously manned the facility for almost 25 years, the agency has said, pursuing science and studying how humans can live in orbit. The ISS—managed by the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada—is also showing its age. Leaks in part of the station operated by Russia keep occurring. Earlier this year, the White House proposed cutting funding for the ISS, saying in a budget pitch that NASA should focus efforts there on 'very limited' research that is essential to exploration of the moon and Mars. Many members of Congress have pushed back. The ISS received money in the Republicans' landmark tax-and-budget bill, and a recent Senate legislative report said NASA should 'maintain the fullest possible use of ISS through end of life.' U.S. government leaders want to avoid any gap between the ISS and future private facilities—in large part because China has its own station, called Tiangong, now flying. 'We must put the necessary systems in place to support and command American astronauts continually in low Earth orbit,' said Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), chairman of the Commerce Committee, during a hearing in April. 'We cannot surrender low Earth orbit to the Chinese or to the Russians.' U.S. companies aiming to build private facilities in low-Earth orbit include Voyager Technologies, Axiom Space, Vast and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. SpaceX has considered using part of its Starship vehicle as an orbital station as well. Several companies have received NASA funding to help develop commercial stations that could replace the ISS, and the agency has struck unfunded agreements with other firms working on station efforts. Building and deploying a new facility could cost around $3 billion or more, according to station developers. Many executives have expected NASA this year to begin picking one or more station developers to receive bigger contracts, narrowing the field of developers. The directive from Duffy moves away from that approach, instructing staff to instead continue supporting a range of station development work. Duffy on Monday also issued a separate memo calling for NASA to accelerate work to develop nuclear power facilities on the moon and Mars. Politico reported earlier on his memos. Write to Micah Maidenberg at

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store