Ship of Fools: Bats in the Belfry

Thread: Bats in the Belfry Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025498

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

Bats are a real problem it seems. There are so many laws and regulations protecting them that churches are becoming unusable or they are doing do-dos on other artefacts that are scheduled and protected too. Should cash strapped churches be given special dispensation from these laws in order to deal with the issue? Should they be given help from the cash strapped government?

What to do? What to do?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Well, in some cases the bats may be making better use of the facilities than the congregation.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

If there's a heritage issue, for example if the bats are damaging a listed building, then state support is fine with me in principle. But I don't think the state should help out (beyond whatever help is available to anyone affected by nesting bats) if the problem is simply that some people's religious meeting place is being put out of use.

After all, I wonder how it would go down if, say, an Islamic group received public funds simply to do some repairs on their mosque?

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Isn't the old joke to simply baptize them and you'll never see them again?

I'll get my coat...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
If there's a heritage issue, for example if the bats are damaging a listed building, then state support is fine with me in principle. But I don't think the state should help out (beyond whatever help is available to anyone affected by nesting bats) if the problem is simply that some people's religious meeting place is being put out of use.

After all, I wonder how it would go down if, say, an Islamic group received public funds simply to do some repairs on their mosque?

If the state makes laws that stop people repairing their buildings the easy way, shouldn't it bear the extra cost of doing it the more difficult way, whether the users of the building are Christians, Moslems or Mrs Baldry from No 23?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

A friend of mine was a team vicar in a parish with nine churches. One was bat-infested and she showed my inside - horrendous.

It takes several hours early on Sunday morning to clean it up. They've cut back on the number of services they have - not only one per month for the diehards who live in the small village and do not countenance worshipping elsewhere in the benefice.

It can't be right that bats take priority over humans.

if swarms of bees can be moved safely, why can't bats?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

In the spirit of the Duke of Wellington - Bat hawks, Ma'am.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the state makes laws that stop people repairing their buildings the easy way, shouldn't it bear the extra cost of doing it the more difficult way, whether the users of the building are Christians, Moslems or Mrs Baldry from No 23?

Maybe so, yes. I was just commenting about whether Christian groups should get special treatment, not on the general state help available to those affected by nesting bats. I don't know enough about the general help available to make a sensible contribution on that point!

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Maybe so, yes. I was just commenting about whether Christian groups should get special treatment, not on the general state help available to those affected by nesting bats. I don't know enough about the general help available to make a sensible contribution on that point!

I don't know about Christian groups getting special treatment, but I'd be pleased to see human beings treated a little better. I honestly don't see why people - babies, elderly, frail etc - have to sit in bat-dunged and bat-urined buildings because it's prohibited to properly repair buildings intended for human use.

It's a complete nonsense to say that because an old building let in a handful of bats during a time of poor repair 80 years ago, all future generations are henceforth banned from plugging up the gaps in the eaves and putting a properly sealed roof on the place.

The bat-man in this part of the world, at any rate, has the power to tell the vestry that it should leave open the holes and accesses by which the bats gain their entrance to the building; even though the result might be ruinous damp, peeling plaster and paint, huge heating bills and great discomfort for the congregation. Bloody ridiculous.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I've got them. There are so many that the squeaking is continuous.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Maybe so, yes. I was just commenting about whether Christian groups should get special treatment, not on the general state help available to those affected by nesting bats. I don't know enough about the general help available to make a sensible contribution on that point!
I don't know about Christian groups getting special treatment, but I'd be pleased to see human beings treated a little better. I honestly don't see why people - babies, elderly, frail etc - have to sit in bat-dunged and bat-urined buildings because it's prohibited to properly repair buildings intended for human use.

It's a complete nonsense to say that because an old building let in a handful of bats during a time of poor repair 80 years ago, all future generations are henceforth banned from plugging up the gaps in the eaves and putting a properly sealed roof on the place.

The bat-man in this part of the world, at any rate, has the power to tell the vestry that it should leave open the holes and accesses by which the bats gain their entrance to the building; even though the result might be ruinous damp, peeling plaster and paint, huge heating bills and great discomfort for the congregation. Bloody ridiculous.

I have dealt with trees on highways. The highway authority can plead threat to life and limb some times. Remedial measures may be made to provide alternative habitat (bat boxes and the like). But survey, programming works when the bats are away on migration, expert inspections and consultants, licence fees etc, etc. all add up to £,000s.

Another question to throw in the ring is to ask if badgers, bats and newts etc. are as threatened as they once were? Do they need ‘more rights than humans’?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

In these parts, organic gardeners will pay $5.00 a pound for aged bat guano. Maybe consider it a money maker?

Honestly, I have no answer. The Endangered Species Act over here has a reputation for being one of the things that can bring land use to a halt. It does sound as if the European rules are similar to the concept of a "taking" under the ESA; anything to disturb the endangered species can be a violation of the law. I can also see how there might be a governmental interest in preserving old art or architecture- finding a way to balance the interests is key.

In my brief former life as a youth leader, we had a developmentally disabled girl in the youth group who was obsessed with bats and other creepy winged creatures. You had to be careful; while she was normally the sweetest person in the world, if she caught you swatting at a moth, you were in for a tearful, emotional lecture on how gentle moths are. Just be glad you don't have to explain your (reasonable, in my view) desire to get the bats out of your church to her.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Sorry for the double post, but just to be clear, the bad guano sale idea was a joke- bat droppings can apparently be quite hazardous for your health, and from what I have read, you probably want to have a mask on if you are going to be cleaning them up in your church.

Posted by snowgoose (# 4394) on :

The rules are not nearly as draconian here, probably because bats can carry rabies, which is still a problem in the US; in fact, the Centers For Disease Control has published warnings about bat-borne diseases.

Rabies is the thing most folks here are afraid of when they see bats, and the UK is, I believe, rabies-free; but don't the PTB have concerns about other illnesses that are spread by bats and their droppings?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by snowgoose:
The rules are not nearly as draconian here, probably because bats can carry rabies, which is still a problem in the US; in fact, the Centers For Disease Control has published warnings about bat-borne diseases.

Rabies is the thing most folks here are afraid of when they see bats, and the UK is, I believe, rabies-free; but don't the PTB have concerns about other illnesses that are spread by bats and their droppings?

It's technically true that British bats don't carry rabies. Unfortunately, they regularly carry other species of Lyssavirus which are as deadly, so the risk, though small, is still there. Someone died of this a few years ago in Scotland, after handling an infected bat without gloves.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Bats are a real problem it seems. There are so many laws and regulations protecting them that churches are becoming unusable or they are doing do-dos on other artefacts that are scheduled and protected too. Should cash strapped churches be given special dispensation from these laws in order to deal with the issue? Should they be given help from the cash strapped government?

What to do? What to do?

A bat falcon I know, living in Mexico and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the EU, so bite him, might suggest:
Break the unjust laws that protect them, without telling anyone you don't trust that you've done so, without warning them that you're going to do so, without telling the press that some might feel forced to do so. Just get together some resourceful and trustworthy people, and deal with the problem. If it was happening to any kind of building but a church, a way would be found.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

White nose syndrome is causing many American cave bat colonies to go extinct since the they don't have the immunity that European bats seem to have to a fungal infection.

So while you discuss the problem, the local colony may collapse.

[ 25. June 2013, 22:54: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

A local church in our town had a bat problem, and yes it was in the belfry. They called for professional help and as I remember they sealed up all but two entry holes in the belfry. Then they installed some device which allowed bats to fly out but not back in. I don't remember all the details but I am sure that it just took a few days, no bats harmed, all bats gone.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

That sounds like a good idea. Another I thought of (though it would be an expense) is to erect a bat house (or houses) of equivalent volume somewhere, if the poor things must be moved. If done well, perhaps it could eventually pay for itself in aged bat guano!

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

I heard that bat guano was a key ingredient in make up. [Eek!]

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
I heard that bat guano was a key ingredient in make up.

Now that was a batshit crazy idea.

Protecting endangered species doesn't mean you think they are more important than humans. But once they're gone they're gone. I would put the needs of a bunch of endangered bats above those of a handful of diehards who choose not to go to a nearby alternative for their worship.

Having said that I do think there's an argument that if the state (or society at large) wants to protect bats, or any other species, it should be prepared to pay for this to happen rather than all the expense falling on the shoulders of those unfortunate enough to suffer from their presence. Simply saying "To hell with these animals, people are more important" is not the answer though.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by snowgoose:
The rules are not nearly as draconian here, probably because bats can carry rabies, which is still a problem in the US; in fact, the Centers For Disease Control has published warnings about bat-borne diseases.

Rabies is the thing most folks here are afraid of when they see bats, and the UK is, I believe, rabies-free; but don't the PTB have concerns about other illnesses that are spread by bats and their droppings?

I read some time ago (can't cite) that the spread of rabies across Europe does threaten the UK, and that a likely route would be via migrating bats.

Longer still ago, I remember a biology teacher waxing angrily that we are over-concerned about extinction, especially of the furry or feathered. Extinction comes to all species, he said. We need only be concerned by the effect on the biosphere. His question would be, would the biosphere miss the bats in your belfry? Enough to see the building left filthy, unhygienic and possibly unusable? No? Zap them.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
I heard that bat guano was a key ingredient in make up.

Myth. Although it was used to make fertilizers and explosives back before we developed an industrial nitrogen fixation process in the early 20th century. The economy of Chile, which had sizable natural nitrogen deposits even before it seized Peru's half of the Atacama desert in the War of the Pacific, apparently took a huge hit with that discovery. As I said above, it is still valued by organic gardeners. Bat guano was one of the listed ingredients in the organic potting mix I used to fill my garden beds.

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Having said that I do think there's an argument that if the state (or society at large) wants to protect bats, or any other species, it should be prepared to pay for this to happen rather than all the expense falling on the shoulders of those unfortunate enough to suffer from their presence. Simply saying "To hell with these animals, people are more important" is not the answer though.

Sometimes the mere presence of an endangered species can take away all economic value from your land. It's one thing to help someone pay to install a guard that will let bats out but not let them back in. Should the government have to compensate you for the value of your land if its regulations take away any use you might have had for it? Where do we draw the line?

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
Longer still ago, I remember a biology teacher waxing angrily that we are over-concerned about extinction, especially of the furry or feathered. Extinction comes to all species, he said. We need only be concerned by the effect on the biosphere. His question would be, would the biosphere miss the bats in your belfry? Enough to see the building left filthy, unhygienic and possibly unusable? No? Zap them.

I have heard that one- I saw a biologist on TV the other day who is a heavy advocate of letting pandas go extinct, since we spend a lot of money to keep them alive in artificial habitats, rather than putting that money to saving hundreds of not as cuddly animals.

As for bats, when you go out in my neighborhood at dusk, you see them flapping around wildly chasing bugs. This time of year, we have an annual moth infestation, which leads to me having to chase moths around my house every night. Having the bats keeping moth numbers down so that I only have to kill 3 a night rather than 10 makes me a fan of their presence in the biosphere.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Also, I think it rather improbable that the money being used to save pandas would be available to protect said less cuddly species. People give because they want to save those cuddly pandas. They wouldn't give to save the millipedes or whatnot.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Protecting endangered species doesn't mean you think they are more important than humans. But once they're gone they're gone. I would put the needs of a bunch of endangered bats above those of a handful of diehards who choose not to go to a nearby alternative for their worship.

That's because you've decided that whatever reasons the 'diehards' have for choosing not to go to a nearby alternative aren't worthwhile, in your book. It's also worth noting that many church buildings with large congregations of people who are not necessarily diehards, become bat infested, too.

I've no problem with protecting endangered species. I just think there must be more intelligent ways of doing that than turning a listed building intended for human use, into an animal toilet.

If you loved your house and were told you couldn't eg, insulate it, weather-proof it, or were told to go live somewhere else because some protected species had momentarily taken up occupation in it, you'd be pissed off, too, I suspect. In fact, I'm quite sure if this scenario were transferred to our own personal favourite building, I think we'd all probably be qick to realize that there must be reasonable alternatives to living harmoniously with nature.

Having said that, the idea that congregations should consider closing down their church buildings in order to worship together, because bats are more important than people, would be very favourably looked upon in many dioceses, and by many clergy!

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
I heard that bat guano was a key ingredient in make up.
Myth. Although it was used to make fertilizers and explosives back before we developed an industrial nitrogen fixation process in the early 20th century. The economy of Chile, which had sizable natural nitrogen deposits even before it seized Peru's half of the Atacama desert in the War of the Pacific, apparently took a huge hit with that discovery. As I said above, it is still valued by organic gardeners. Bat guano was one of the listed ingredients in the organic potting mix I used to fill my garden beds.

And I thought tour guides were more reliable than the internet. [Disappointed]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

I was a tour guide for six years, so I get to say it: don't believe anything a tour guide tells you.

OK, that's a stretch. But take it all with a grain of salt. Especially from the old guys. I always tried to be as accurate as possible, because I was young, and I started out with skeptical tour groups. The old guys know that they have your trust from the start, so they will tell you all sorts of crap.

Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :

There's an interesting series on Radio 4 at the moment (iPlayer link) talking about this kind of thing - it's called Shared Planet.
Nothing especially about bats in churches so far but there are parallels.

[ 27. June 2013, 12:01: Message edited by: cheesymarzipan ]

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

if swarms of bees can be moved safely, why can't bats?

The can't - as I know to the bees cost! We had bees in our church hall which were causing a real threat to our hall users. A local beekeeper couldn't reach them so I had them exterminated. Bats have more protection under the law.

I have heard that you never get bats in high churches because they don't like incense. It would probably be illegal to burn incense to drive off the bats, but if you burn it for religious reasons, I don't think the bat-huggers would be able to object. I'm not an expert so please do your own research if you have a bat problem.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I stand corrected about bees.

Ironically, one of the churches in my friend's benefice uses incense regularly - but not the one with the bats.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I bought some cheap incense sticks from a Chinese supermarket once which I swear were made from the dung of some animal; bats a definite possibility. Up until now I'd always assumed they were Yak shit wrapped in straw.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:

Another question to throw in the ring is to ask if badgers, bats and newts etc. are as threatened as they once were? Do they need ‘more rights than humans’?

Well, if you determine this by recorded behaviour, they certainly deserve more than humans.

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
Zap them.

Yeah! What right have God's creatures in a church?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I was advised to burn incense to stop bees from settling in my loft. Too late, since they had set up house in the cavity of the wall. I had to have them killed, as they were occupying the bathroom as well. And the lot who set up home in the chimney. Sad.

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

On bats and rabies I am travelling to Britain soon and, when I told my GP this, she discussed the theoretical possibility of being bit by a rabid bat and encouraged me to think about vaccination. As I understand that no one has ever been bit in Britain I shall decline the offer. The fact that it is also very expensive didn't help to win me over to the idea.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Matariki - have a look at my note further up the thread. Honestly the risk of being bitten by a bat is pretty much zero unless you are out to handle one. We do not have rabid bats in Britain at present though as somebody pointed out that may change in the future.

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

Honest Ron, I believe you! And as I am originally from Britain I remember the posters at ports and airports about keeping rabies out of the country. I was more surprised than anxious when my GP raised the issue with me.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
Zap them.
Yeah! What right have God's creatures in a church?

Haha! Yes, as Francis Spuford discomfortingly points out, God sustains the nastiest things in life as much as the nicest. As regards the fabric of buildings, the nasties would include dry rot, wet rot, death watch beetle, woodworm, rats, termites... let's all praise the Lord while the church falls down.

I like bats. Love to see them flitting around catching insects in a summer dusk. I'd evict them rather than zap them. The law saying we can't even do that is daft.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

I saw the story on the BBC site. I noted that it was not the UK government rules that were
keeping churches from dealing with unwanted bats. It was an edict from teh European Union diktatt . Another down side of being in the EU.
As for how would we respond if this were a mosque ? That is a non starter. If any place a has unwanted bats they need to be free to deal
with them.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
I saw the story on the BBC site. I noted that it was not the UK government rules that were
keeping churches from dealing with unwanted bats. It was an edict from teh European Union diktatt . Another down side of being in the EU.
As for how would we respond if this were a mosque ? That is a non starter. If any place a has unwanted bats they need to be free to deal
with them.

So often it is the British gold plating of the legislation that is the problem. Could any Continental shipmates enlighten us how they are dealt with in France etc. ?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
I saw the story on the BBC site. I noted that it was not the UK government rules that were
keeping churches from dealing with unwanted bats. It was an edict from teh European Union diktatt .

That's not actually true of course. We had rules like this before we persuaded other EU countries to adopt them as well, and the British government can choose whether or not to adopt the rules and how to enforce them. So this issue has nothign whatsoever to do with EU membership.

I suspect that the misleading nature of the article was the MP, or perhaps the journalists quoting him, deliberately trying to use this to have a dig at the EU. All part of the massive anti-Europe and anti-immigration propaganda campaign we are having influicted on us.

In fact if I wasn't such a calm and trusting soul I would suspect that the chance to invent say nasty things about the EU was the real reason the MP brought the subject up in the first place. Neither bats nor old buildings have ever been much of a big deal for the Tories, both have tended to be a left-wing obsession. But of course, no British Tory MP would ever sink so low as to use our ancient parish churches just to try to get a sound-bite into the newspapers. Perish the thought.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Another down side of being in the EU.

And what's to say that the legislation would not have come from the UK if the EU had not been there as a scapegoat? We didn't need any EU interferance to protect the vermin that is the fox from being humanely killed by hunting with dogs. I'm sure bats would get the British public's sympathy over church-goers if the EU hadn't got there already!

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
...It was an edict from teh European Union diktatt . Another down side of being in the EU.
...
As for how would we respond if this were a mosque ?

Re-reading your post, are you sure you've not been spending too much time reading the Daily Mail and the Telegraph? It used to affect me in the same way.

Posted by maryjones (# 13523) on :

Tangent/

quote:
badgers, bats and newts etc. are as threatened as they once were? Do they need ‘more rights than humans’?

I don't know about bats but badgers have been off the endangered quantity (though not the list) In this part of the country, they have been replaced by farmers and their cattle.
You may have heard of bovine tb./Tangent

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Another down side of being in the EU.

And what's to say that the legislation would not have come from the UK if the EU had not been there as a scapegoat? We didn't need any EU interferance to protect the vermin that is the fox from being humanely killed by hunting with dogs. I'm sure bats would get the British public's sympathy over church-goers if the EU hadn't got there already!

Foxes may or may not be vermin, but people object to hunting with dogs being a sport. That, and the fact that hunting with dogs is not humane or as effective as say, shooting, secured the banning of hunting with dogs, and rightly so. All blood sports next please.

Taking pleasure in the death of animals is decried when it's working-class youths fighting with dogs (and rightly so) but somehow more acceptable for the upper classes to participate in. Funny that.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Another down side of being in the EU.

And what's to say that the legislation would not have come from the UK if the EU had not been there as a scapegoat? We didn't need any EU interferance to protect the vermin that is the fox from being humanely killed by hunting with dogs. I'm sure bats would get the British public's sympathy over church-goers if the EU hadn't got there already!
Foxes may or may not be vermin, but people object to hunting with dogs being a sport. That, and the fact that hunting with dogs is not humane or as effective as say, shooting, secured the banning of hunting with dogs, and rightly so. All blood sports next please.

Taking pleasure in the death of animals is decried when it's working-class youths fighting with dogs (and rightly so) but somehow more acceptable for the upper classes to participate in. Funny that.

Well yes, yes Jade. I know they're cute and fluffy and anyone who has never seen the entrails of their own egg-laying chickens scattered across the field could ever use the word "vermin" to describe such a delightful creature. But my point is that we don't need the EU to force us into making laws that put animals before people. We are quite capable to taking those decisions on our own.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0