North Bull Island Hare Survey 2016

Dr. Favel Naulty

UCD School of Biology and Environmental Science

Executive summary

Concerns about the status of the population have been raised by DHAG in Dail proceedings (Dail record 22/4/15). The population has declined to a level where the only means of maintaining hares on the Island is to augment the population by translocating individuals from a suitable source population. New data on the remaining population and an update on dog walking activity are needed before any such translocation action can be considered. A translocation project will also require the provision of a refuge area(s) from which dogs are excluded.

Hare survey methodology was based on the National hare survey guidelines and the previous 2012 survey. Hare surveys were conducted on five nights between February and March. However, no hares were sighted and the last reported sighting was from summer 2015. The rabbit population was estimated based on burrow density in a sample of dune area and indicated a declining population of 184 ± 40 individuals.

Dog walking activity was surveyed over 12 days at four points on the Island. Overall, 1093 dogs were sighted with 832 owners. The majority of dogs were not on leads (857/1089, 79%). Fifty-two sightings of restricted breeds indicated an almost complete lack of compliance with muzzle laws and a 24% compliance with lead rules similar to other breeds. Overall, 57% of owners used the wooden bridge entry route to the Island. Although access to the beach for parking has been removed from the causeway entry route in recent years, this has not affected dog walker use of this entry route with 42% of owners in 2012 using this entry similar to the 43% estimated in the current survey. Overall, 17% of dog walkers are estimated to use the northern dunes at some stage of their visit with 44% using the southern dunes. Based on these results, restricting dog access to provide a hare refuge area in the northern dunes is likely to have a lower impact on amenity use.

Recommended actions to facilitate application for a translocation licence

Five recommendations are made to move the project forward:

1. Increased signage and enforcement of the dogs on lead policy 2. Identification and designation of an appropriate hare refuge area 3. Enforcement of dog restrictions with refuge area 4. Engage with golf clubs to discuss provision of areas of out-of-bounds rough grass 5. Conduct a public awareness campaign around Bull Island to gain public support Table of contents:

1. Introduction 1

2. Methods 8

3. Results 12

4. Discussion 24

Conclusions 27

Recommendations 27

Acknowledgements 28

References 29

North Bull Island hares (Tom Cooney 9/6/2014) 1 Introduction

The mountain or Arctic hare (Lepus timidus Linnaeus 1758) is a small herbivore (2-4 kg) belonging to the family Leporidae. L. timidus has a widespread distribution with a contiguous range extending from the Pacific Ocean in the east to Norway in the west in addition to isolated populations in Japan, Ireland, Scotland and the Alps regions in southern Europe (Flux and Angermann 1990; Mitchell-Jones et al. 1999). The species typically inhabits tundra, taiga and boreal forest zones particularly pine, birch and juniper whereas moors and bogland are the preferred habitats in Ireland and Scotland (Flux and Angermann 1990). Coat colour is variable with the summer coat generally grey to brown moulting to white in winter. L. timidus is primarily nocturnal but shows increased daytime activity in summer when nights are short (Lemnell and Lindlof 1981). During the day hares rest in a “form” with ears back and eyes half closed. They are a non-territorial species with overlapping home ranges varying in size depending on habitat. They are classified as Least Concern both at Worldwide and European levels (Smith and Johnston 2008).

The Irish mountain hare (L. timidus hibernicus Bell 1837) is an endemic sub-species of mountain hare with unique morphology and ecology due to its allopatric genetic divergence as a result of isolation from other L. timidus populations for at least 35,000 - 57,000 years (Hughes et al. 2006). It does not turn white in winter like other European populations, and in Ireland it inhabits lowland habitats including agricultural farmland and coastal grasslands (Hayden and Harrington 2000). Recent evidence indicates that the Irish hare is more closely related to mountain hare populations in mainland Europe than its geographically closest neighbour, the Scottish hare (L. timidus scoticus Hilzheimer 1906), suggesting that Ireland was colonised via a southerly land bridge (Hamill et al. 2006). Additionally, the genetic data suggests that Irish populations form a unique monophyletic assemblage among mountain hares and have more private alleles than any other regional populations with some calling for their reclassification as a distinct species (Reid 2006).

The Irish mountain hare is considered to have intrinsic conservation value due to its unique phylogenetic status and distinct phenotype, behaviour and ecology. It is a protected species listed under EU Habitats Directive [92/43/EEC] Annex V and protected under the Wildlife Act (1976) and Wildlife (Amendment) Act (2000). The last national survey in 2006/2007 suggested that while there may be changes at local level, the national range of the Irish hare has remained stable (Reid et al. 2007). The most recent estimates are 27,400 for Northern Ireland (Reid et al. 2009) and 535,000 for the Republic (Reid et al. 2007). Population studies have also confirmed the potential for wide annual fluctuations. Nevertheless, the species is classified as of least concern in the Irish Red List (Marnell et al. 2009).

Threats to the species are not fully understood but several factors are thought to have a negative impact on hare populations (Dingerkus 1997; Dingerkus and Montgomery 2002) and were identified in the species action plan (Anon 2005). These include: 1) Loss of refuge areas for daytime rest sites, particularly rushes and good quality hedgerows (Dingerkus 1997, Tapper & Barnes 1986), 2) habitat change and changes in farming practice, such as conversion of species-rich grassland to ryegrass (Lolium spp.) and clover mixes (Dingerkus

1997), the switch from spring to winter cereals and the change from hay to silage making, 3) habitat fragmentation (Dingerkus 1997), 4) increased levels of disturbance due mainly to high livestock stocking densities on farms, increased use of farm machinery, peat cutting machines and disturbance by cats and dogs (Smith et al. 2005; Dingerkus 1997; Jeffrey 1997; Pielowski 1976), 5) increased mortality resulting from highly efficient mechanised harvesting of agricultural crops (Dingerkus 1997), 6) increased levels of predation on leverets (Dingerkus 1997) and 7) illegal taking of hares (Dingerkus 1997) and unsustainable taking of hares for sporting purposes. Of these, categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 might apply to the hares on North Bull Island.

North Bull Island is situated along the northern edge of Dublin Bay on the east coast of Ireland (53º 58' N, 6º 15' W). The Island has developed, since the 1820’s, to the north-east to the North Bull Wall and is a low-lying sandy spit about 4.85 km long and 0.70 km wide. A salt marsh fringes the mainland side of the Island and a sandy beach occurs on the seaward side (see figures 1 and 2). The terrestrial part of North Bull Island is dominated by the two golf courses positioned along the west side of the Island (St. Anne’s Golf Club in the northern section and The Royal Dublin Golf Club in the southern section). These occupy much of the length of the transitional zone between the beach and the salt marsh. A largely unmodified zone containing sand dunes is located on the seaward side of the golf courses and extends along the whole of the Island. The Island is separated from the mainland by intertidal mud and sand flats. The intrepretive centre is located in the centre of the Island.

Figure 1: Aerial view of North Bull Island indicating locations of golf courses (green) and interpretive centre (red).

( McCorry and Ryle 2009).

Island : Habitat map of North Bull Figure 2

North Bull Island and its surroundings is the most designated site in the Republic of Ireland with numerous international and national designations having been recognised as an important area for nature conservation for over 100 years (see figure 3). The Island has several rare and threatened species listed in Annexes I and II of the EU Habitats Directive, is used by national and internationally important numbers of wintering wildfowl and waders in addition to the presence of several rare and threatened plants listed on the Flora Protection Order (S.I. No. 94 of 1999) and in the Red Data Book (Curtis and Mc Gough 1988).

Figure 3: Designation process for the North Bull Island Biosphere Reserve (Dublin City Council 2014).

Hares are one of two natural grazers present on North Bull Island, the other species being the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus Linnaeus 1758). It is not recorded how or when hares first reached the Island. Hares have been recorded on Bull Island since 1931 (O’Mahony 1931) but the population has fluctuated greatly from an estimated high of 150 individuals at the start of the 1980’s down to <20 in the 1990’s (see figure 4). The high numbers in the 1980’s may have been in part due to maintenance of animals for coursing by a Dublin coursing club on the Royal Dublin golf course (Wolfe 1995). In 1995 an augmentation of ~18 animals from Mosney, Co. Meath took place. However the majority of these additional animals did not survive (Alan Wolfe personal communication) and the population remained around 20 individuals towards the end of the 1990’s. Survey work in 2012 indicated a small remaining population of ~5 individuals.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Minimum numberalive 0 Early 1980's 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2012 Year

Figure 4: Hare population fluctuations 1980 – 2012. Numbers represent the estimated minimum number of individuals present. Red indicates surviving introduced animals.

A lack of juvenile recruitment to the population is the leading suspected cause of decline in the hare population over time. Research during the early 1990’s during a period of decline indicated that the drop in numbers could not be attributed solely to disease, weather conditions, food shortage, predation or high adult mortality (Wolfe 1995) as the weights of captured hares and survival estimates indicated that they were all in good health. Pregnant females were also regularly encountered. Habitat selection by hares was more influenced by human disturbance, than by food, predation or shelter considerations and that this had implications for juvenile survival (Wolfe 1995). Large areas of the dune grassland which makes up 26% of the Island remained unused due to disturbance (Wolfe 1995). Although the best habitat in terms of shelter characteristics is the dune grassland, hares preferred to use the outer salt marsh or undisturbed sections of dune enclosed on the edges of the golf courses. Leverets born on the outer salt marsh are at risk of drowning or chilling as the area is frequently flooded by the sea resulting in reduced survival and reduced recruitment to the population.

This pattern of reduced recruitment remains the most likely cause for population decline in recent years. However small population effects may also be having an effect. With an average life-span of 3-4 years (maximum 8 – 9 years; Hayden and Harrington 2000) some recruitment has occurred in the period between 1995 and 2012 but this has been insufficient to maintain population numbers or reverse the decline. Observations during the 2012 survey indicated the then remaining population was mainly in the north-west of the Island on the tidal flats at night-time with the majority of daytime sightings on St. Anne’s golf course. No animals were flushed during four days of observations within the dune area (Naulty and Hayden 2012) and hares were most likely using the margins of the golf courses as daytime resting areas.

Dog walking is one of the most frequent recreational activities attracting visitors to urban green spaces (Wood et al. 2005). However, the presence of domestic dogs can have significant effects on wildlife communities and are a cause for concern within protected sites. The response of site managers to these concerns ranges from requiring all dogs to be on leads to seasonal restrictions or complete bans of dogs within a site or in specific areas (Taylor et al. 2005). However, even the presence of dogs in an area may be enough to have an effect (Banks and Bryant 2007). Behavioural studies have demonstrated when dogs are present, both birds and mammals may show elevated stress levels (MacArthur et al. 1982), increased flight distances (Miller et al. 2001) and even impaired reproduction (Yalden and Yalden 1990). Mammal activity decreases in areas where dogs are allowed compared to those where they are excluded (George and Crooks 2006; Lenth et al. 2008).

Problems with dog disturbances to hare populations have been reported from a number of protected sites in the UK (Taylor et al. 2005) and have previously been recognised as an issue on North Bull Island. Wolfe (1995) considered levels of human disturbance and in particular dog off leads to be the leading cause of reduced dune usage by the hare population. Recommendations from his study included potentially restricting human access to some areas and enforcement of a “dogs on lead” policy in order to reduce disturbance to the hares. Dogs are now required to be on a leash at North Bull Island according to bye-laws issued by DCC (see figure 5; Dublin City Council 1998). The SAAO (Special Amenity Area Order) states

5 that “unleashed dogs shall not be permitted on the Island in order to protect the Irish Hare population and also to protect ground nests and chicks of ground nesting birds (7.13)” (Dublin Corporation 1994). However, a lack of enforcement has negated compliance with council staff regularly requesting owners to put their dogs on leads resulting in some cases in verbal threats to staff or their requests being completely ignored (Pat Corrigan personal comment). Survey work in 2012 indicated an 87% lack of compliance with on average 6 dogs running loose per hour in the dune area during weekdays in the spring (Naulty and Hayden 2012). Summer recreational activity surveys in 2014 indicated dog walking represented between 3.5% and 7% of visits to the Island with an overall estimated 50.4% of dogs off the lead (Harris et al. 2014). However, in the alder marsh area of the northern dunes dog walking accounted for 30% of activity with 88% of dogs off the lead. Clearly, more enforcement, better signage and more public education is needed.

Figure 5: Example of signage from Bull Wall and causeway dune entrances.

Concerns about the status of the population have been raised by DHAG in Dail proceedings (Dail record 22/4/15) with the Taoiseach keen “to ascertain whether an essential part of Bull Island can continue for the future” as reported in The Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/bull-Island-s-hare-population-all-but- extinct-due-to-dogs-1.2197411). The population has declined to a level where the only means of maintaining hares on the Island is to augment the population by translocating individuals from a suitable source population. Translocation of a species for the purposes of population

6 augmentation is strictly governed by the IUCN regulations (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 1987; 1998; 2012). These regulations stipulate that “Restocking with the aim of conserving a dangerously reduced population should only be attempted when the causes of the reduction have been largely removed and natural increase can be excluded” (IUCN 1987). In the case of the Bull Island hare population, the most likely cause of decline is range restriction due to human disturbance. This impact has been suggested by both previous research (Wolfe 1995), the 2012 survey (Naulty and Hayden 2012) and is recognised in the current management plan for North Bull Island (McCorry and Ryle 2009). Previously, the creation of a hare refuge within the fixed dune area was considered to significantly impact on the amenity use of certain parts of the Island and was not recommended (McCorry and Ryle 2009). However, an augmentation or re-introduction would not be recommended or licensed without the provision of such a hare refuge in addition to enforcement of the dogs on lead policy.

It is an action of the Dublin Bay UNESCO Biosphere Periodic Review that DCC and the National Parks and Wildlife Service should be further targeted the themes for events and activities to involve citizens in the conservation challenges that face the Island such as the dogs off lead issue and the potential to translocate Irish hares to prevent the species going extinct (Dublin City Council 2014). New data on the remaining population and an update on dog walking activity are needed before any such translocation action can be considered. A translocation project will also require the provision of a refuge area(s) from which dogs are excluded to provide both suitable cover for the hares and a safe breeding location. The location of such an area will need to be a balance between the required conservation benefits and the loss of amenity use. Data on dog walking activity on the Island would help identify areas with less public use and thus amenity value where exclusion may be both beneficial and easier to implement. This data will also provide the baseline data for comparison with future data on dog activity once a refuge area has been established. The proposed conservation works will ensure DCC can fulfil their commitments given in the Dublin City Development Plan to fulfil the North Bull Island SAAO Management Plan and the objectives for the Dublin Bay UNESCO Biosphere report to prevent extinction of this EU-protected native species.

This report details the results of this survey work in addition to making recommendations on actions necessary to move forward with a translocation licence application fulfilling the requirements of the IUCN guidelines (IUCN 2012).

2 Methods

2.1 Preliminary survey work

A preliminary site survey examining the locations of rabbit and fox activity was conducted on Feb 2nd 2016. The general locations of rabbit activity (rabbit holes, evidence of digging and droppings) within the dune areas were mapped in addition to indications of foxes (scat locations). Contact was made with staff from the two golf courses to determine when hares were last sighted. Internet searches using the keywords ‘hare’ and ‘North Bull Island’ were made for sighting records.

2.2 Rabbit population

The rabbit population was further investigated by mapping the distribution of active holes within a 9.59 ha sample of the dune area (~23% of the total) close to the visitor centre (see figure 6). Members of the UCD Applied Environmental Science MSc class assisted in GPS mapping of holes on 11th March 2016. The area sampled was divided into four sections. Each section was systematically searched for rabbit holes using a search line with students walking 2-3m apart. Holes were marked with bamboo canes. Three students with GPS handheld devices followed the search line noting the hole locations and removing the canes. Based on the number of holes counted per hectare an estimate of rabbit density and abundance was calculated with reference to estimates of known density also collected in spring from a similar sand dune habitat in Scotland (Kolb 1991).

Figure 6: Location of rabbit burrow survey areas (black outlines) in relation to interpretive centre (red) and St. Anne’s golf course (green).

2.3 Hare Survey

Hare survey methodology was based on the National hare survey guidelines (Reid et al. 2007) and the previous 2012 survey. A 4km line transect along the western edge of the two golf courses was used as this provided the best coverage of the available habitats. Nine elevated survey points along this transect as close to the line as possible were used for point surveys (see figure 7). The number of surveys (n) required to give 99% probability of successfully detecting presence was calculated based on the detection probability estimated in the 2012 survey using the following formula: n = log(1-powerunit)/log(1-p) where powerunit is the desired probability of successfully obtaining at least one detection with repeated site visits and p is the estimate of detectability from a previous study (Scott et al. 2002). The estimate of detectability from the 2012 survey was 0.6 resulting in an estimate of 5 surveys needed to give the required power.

Hare surveys were conducted on five nights between February and March. Surveys were conducted between 8pm and 11pm using a two million candlepower spotlight. Two 360o sweeps of the spotlight were conducted at each point and the locations of any animals (hares, foxes and rabbits) sighted were recorded using a compass and laser rangefinder. The direction in which individual points were surveyed alternated from 1 – 9 sequentially on three nights to 6 – 9 followed by 1 – 5 on two nights.

Figure 7: Locations of hare survey points (yellow) and dog survey vantage points (red).

2.4 Dog survey

To assess the overall usage of the dune and beach areas by dog walkers, two vantage points were selected from which all access points to the these areas could be monitored (see figure 8). An additional vantage point was selected towards the northern end of the Island to assess use of the beach and dunes beyond the end of St. Anne’s golf course and a fourth point on the roadway was used to assess if any dog walkers were utilising the tidal marsh and mudflats area on the mainland side of the Island (see figure 7).

Each point was surveyed on two weekdays and one weekend day for eight consecutive hours (8:30am to 4:30pm) between February and March. All dog sightings were recorded noting the time, number of dogs per walker, breed, on or off lead and habitat/routes used. For restricted breeds (see table 1; The Control of Dogs Regulations 1998, S.I. No. 442 of 1998) compliance with muzzle rules were also noted. Habitat was defined as beach, dune, for VP1 the roadway running along the southern edge of the Island and for VP2 the roadway around the roundabout. For dogs which were off the lead an estimate of the maximum distance they moved away from their owner was made. An attempt was made to select days with similar weather (see table 2) and fieldwork was not conducted on days with consistent rainfall or high winds.

Figure 8: Dog walker entry points (arrows) observed from vantage points 1 and 2 (red).

Data were analysed using R (R Core Team 2013). The data were examined for patterns in dog ownership, diurnal activity, habitat usage and compliance with on lead policy. Restricted breed data was also examined for complience with muzzle rules and patterns of habitat use.

Table 1: Restricted breeds required to be on a lead and muzzled at all times in public. Bandog Pit Bull Terrier English Bull Terrier Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Bull Mastiff Doberman Pinscher Rottweiler German Shepherd

Rhodesian Ridgeback Japanese Akita Japanese Tosa (Greyhound*)

*Must be on a strong lead at all times in public but not required to be muzzled.

Table 2: Weather data during vantage point surveys (Weather data – Met Eireann).

Date Site Rainfall (mm) Sunshine (Hrs) Max. Temp (oC) Mean wind (Knots) 4/2/2016 VP2 0 1.4 6.7 15.6 5/2/2016 VP1 0 8.4 8.7 12.1 11/2/2016 VP1 0 0.1 12.8 5.2 12/2/2016 VP2 0 3.4 13.9 8.8 25/2/2016 VP3 0 9.3 13.6 15.2 26/2/2016 VP3 2 1 11.4 17.1 27/2/2016 VP1 1 5.9 9.8 16.2 28/2/2016 VP2 0 7.2 10.3 11.2 3/3/2016 VP4 0 2 8.4 11.8 10/3/2016 VP4 0 7.4 10.1 7.5 13/3/2016 VP3 0 2.6 12.8 5.8 27/3/2016 VP4 1 5.9 9.8 16.2

2.5 Dog walker route use

Data from VP 1, VP 2 and VP 3 were used to examine the relative frequency of routes used by dog walkers. The total number of owners using each route was expressed as a percentage of the total and mapped to represent the relative usage of each habitat area. In addition, the sample of data from restricted breeds was examined to determine if their owners preferred particular routes or areas of the Island.

3 Results

3.1 Initial site survey

Initial walking surveys of the Island indicated that fox activity was located in both the southern and northern dune areas with a higher density of scat in the northern area (see figure 9 inset). Rabbit activity was found throughout the dune areas (see figure 9). Additional activity (not mapped) was found within the Royal Dublin golf course grounds. Thirty-three holes in the western fence along the Royal Dublin course showed evidence of regular usage by wildlife. As rabbits are a pest species within golf courses, the future of these animals remains uncertain and they are not considered further.

Golf course staff indicated that the last sightings of hares on the Royal Dublin grounds was in 2014 and in St. Anne’s in 2015 with two individuals sighted near the clubhouse. Internet searches indicated two hares (photographed) in summer 2014 with no further records since (www.northbullIsland.com).

3.2 Rabbit population estimate

Overall, 633 rabbit burrows were recorded (see figure 10). This gave an average density of 68 ± 9 burrows per ha. Based on known data from Kolb (1991) this gave an estimate of 4.42 rabbits per ha. The area of rabbit activity was estimated at 41.72 ha giving a current (pre breeding) population estimate of 184 ± 40 individuals.

3.3 Hare survey

No evidence of hares were observed either during daytime fieldwork or during the five nights of surveying. A pair of foxes were sighted on three of the nights between points 1 and 3 in the Royal Dublin course. Rabbits were also sighted on four occasions from point 5. While extinction is difficult to prove, the evidence suggests the hare population is now gone from North Bull Island.

3.4 Dog survey

Over the twelve days of surveying, there were 1093 dogs were sighted with 832 owners. The majority of owners (75%) walked one dog only (see figure 11: = 1.31 ± 0.02). There were only four suspected cases of commercial dog walkers using the beach area with 6-8 dogs of multiple breeds indicating that the majority of dog activity on the Island consists of private dog owners walking their own dogs. Some commercial walkers use the beach area later in the day outside of the daytime period surveyed (Pat Corrigan personal comment).

Figure 9: Rabbit activity areas (burrows, droppings and digging). Inset indicates areas where fox scats were found.

Survey area Size (ha) Number of burrows 1 1.69 134 2 2.35 106 3 2.16 178 4 3.39 215 Total 9.59 633

Figure 10: Rabbit burrow survey areas and results.

To examine activity patterns, data from VP1 and VP2 only were used as these covered all entry points to the Island and data was collected for equivalent periods of time (three days each) making it directly comparable. On average, 21 ± 2.29 dog walkers visit the Island each hour on weekdays with 40 ± 4.26 owners per hour at the weekend. Based on these results and an eleven hour day during spring (personal observation during fieldwork), this equates to ~2035 dog walker visits to the Island per week. A comparison with weekday data from 2012 indicated a slight increase in dog walking activity (2012: = 18 ± 1.28 dog walkers per hour).

During the week, activity was constant throughout the day decreasing towards mid-afternoon. In contrast, activity at weekends peaked in the middle of the day (see figure 12).

700 (623) 600

500

400

300 Frequency (179) 200

100 (22) (4) (3) (1) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of dogs per owner

Figure 11: Number of dogs walked per owner.

70 Weekday 60 SEM)

- Weekend 50 40 30 20 10 0 9:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 15:30 16:30 - 10:30 ------Mean numberofdogwalkers(+/ 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 15:30 Observation hour

Figure 12: Dog walking activity throughout the observation day.

Dog walking activity in the dune area is of most relevance in relation to hares. As such, the data was broken up into habitats. These consisted of beach, dune, for VP1 the roadway running along the southern edge of the Island and for VP2 the roadway around the roundabout. Data from VP4 was excluded from habitat assessments as all dogs were observed on the edge of the roadway and the data represented only a subset of owners using the causeway entry route. The majority of dog walkers (54%) utilised either the roadways, beach or a combination of both and are unlikely to have an impact on hares (see figure 13). The remaining 46% of owners used either the dune area alone or in combination with one or both of the other habitat types.

72, 11% 69, 10%

58, 9% Roadway Beach 109, 16% Road and beach Dune Dune and beach 37, 5% Road and dune

239, 36% All three habitats 85, 13%

Figure 13: Dog walking activity in each habitat type. Highlighted sections include use of the dunes likely to impact on hares.

Estimates of dune use were obtained using data from VP1 and VP2 and dividing the dune area into northern and southern sections divided by the roadway at the visitor centre. During the week, on average four dog walkers use the northern dunes per hour increasing to an average of five per hour at weekends. The southern dunes are used more often with an average of five owners per hour during the week increasing to an average of eleven per hour at weekends. With an eleven hour day, 44 – 55 dog walkers use the northern dunes per day (weekday, weekend day) and 55 - 121 walkers use the southern dunes per day (weekday, weekend day; see figure 14). Comparable data for weekdays from 2012 indicated similar dog activity in both dune sections (2012: = 3 ± 0.41 dog walkers per hour in the northern dunes, = 7 ± 0.78 dog walkers per hour in the southern dunes).

The majority of dogs were not on leads (857/1089, 79%). Compliance was highest for data collected at the roadway onto the Island (VP4; see figure 15). Once owners reached either the beach or dune area dogs which were initially on leads were generally let off the lead. Data from the remaining sites indicated only an 18 % compliance rate. There was a significant association between habitat type and lead use (see figure 16: Χ 2 = 11.407, df = 1, p < 0.001). Compliance was lowest on the beach with only 13% of dogs on leads. In the dunes, on

16 average 20% of dogs were on leads leading to an estimated 44 - 55 dogs off lead per day (weekday – weekend day) in the northern dunes and 77 – 99 dogs per day in the southern dunes (see figure 14). The northern dunes are the least used area for dog walking activity.

Bull Wall roadway Southern dunes Northern dunes Daily estimates: Daily estimates: 55 – 121 walkers 44 – 55 walkers Daily estimates: 77 – 99 dogs off lead 44 – 55 dogs off lead 88 – 176 walkers 11 – 33 dogs on lead 11 – 22 dogs on lead 99 – 176 dogs off lead 22 – 44 dogs on lead Beach Daily estimates: 55 – 143 walkers 77 – 165 dogs off lead 11 – 22 dogs on lead

Figure 14: Schematic habitat diagram indicating daily usage estimates based on average hourly estimates and an eleven hour day. The first number is the estimate for weekdays with the second representing the weekend daily estimate.

0.8 SEM) - 0.6

0.4

0.2

0 on leadpolicy(+/

Mean compliencewithdogs 1 2 3 4 Vantage point

Figure 15: Lead usage for each vantage point.

0.30 0.25 0.20

SEM) 0.15 -

(+/ 0.10 0.05 Mean leadcompliance 0.00 Dune Beach Roadway Habitat type

Figure 16: Lead usage per habitat type.

Dogs off the lead moved between 5m and 100m away from their owners and there was no significant differences between habitat types (X 2 = 14.56, df = 10, p = 0.15, ns). The median distance was 20m (see figure 17).

100%

80% 100 m 60% 50 m

40% 30 m 20 m

Percentage ofdogs 20% 10 m 0% 5 m Dune Beach Roadway Habitat type

Figure 17: Percentage of dogs off the lead in each distance from owner category.

Within the dune area, dogs off the lead moved between 5 and 100m away from their owners with a median value of 20m (see figure 18). 16% of dogs on leads in the dune area were on extension leads with the capacity to move several metres away from their owner albeit under some form of control.

120

100

Frequency 40

0 5 10 20 30 50 100 Maximum distance from owner category (m)

Figure 18: Number of dogs off lead in each distance category for the dune areas.

In total, 65 recognised dog breeds were recorded in addition to mongrels. With the exception of Australian silky and Tibetan terriers, all other breeds were seen off the lead at least once (see table 3). The majority of dogs seen off the lead (56%) were from breeds with a hunting background (see figure 19; terriers and gundogs) with an elevated instinct to find prey and give chase with a further 20% involving breeds with herding and guarding instincts having

18 been bred to work with livestock (pastoral group). With the exception of the working group where 62% were off lead, there was no association between breed group and the probability of being let off the lead (see figure 20; X2 = 10.01, df = 5, p = 0.15, ns).

350 Off lead 300 On lead 250 200 150 100 Number ofdogs 50 0

Breed group (Irish Kennel Club)

Figure 19: Frequency of dogs in each breed group recorded both on and off lead.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Percentage ofdogs 10% 0%

Off lead On lead Breed group (Irish Kennel Club)

Figure 20: Compliance with on lead policy for each breed group (IKC).

Dogs off the lead included 52 cases of dogs (6 breeds) listed under the Restricted Breeds List which by law are required to be muzzled and on the lead at all times in addition to 13 cases of greyhounds off the lead (see table 3) indicating a lead compliance of 24% similar to other breeds (21%). Only one German shepherd complied fully with legislation being both on the lead and muzzled. In three other instances muzzles were seen but not on the dogs (two cases where the muzzle was attached to the back of the collar and one in which the owner was carrying it in his hand).

Table 2: Dog breeds listed by group and compliance with on lead rules. Red indicated restricted breeds also requiring a muzzle (excl greyhound which must be on a lead only. Group Breed Off lead On lead Group Breed Off lead On lead Labradoodle 9 Staffordshire bull terrier 8 2 Lurcher 9 Terrier English bull terrier 6 4 Mongrel 18 6 Terriers* 210 68 Cocker spaniel 28 17 Australian silky terrier 2 English setter 3 4 Bichon frise 30 11 English springer spaniel 60 13 Cavalier king charles 19 11 Toy Flat-coated retriever 1 2 Chihuahua 2 Golden retriever 41 5 Maltese terrier 20 1 Gundog Gordon setter 2 Pug 8 1 Irish red setter 4 Boston terrier 4 2 Labrador retriever 109 20 Bulldog 3 1 Pointer 3 Dalmation 3 Weimeraner 5 German spitz 1 Beagle 12 2 Miniature schnauzer 2 1 Utility Basenji 1 Schipperke 2 Coonhound 1 Shih tzu 6 Hound Deerhound 2 Standard poodle 3 English foxhound 2 1 Standard schnauzer 1 Greyhound 13 8 Tibetan spaniel 3 Petit basset griffon vendeen 1 Toy poodle 5 Bearded collie 7 Bernese mountain dog 2 3 Belgian shepherd 3 2 Boxer 10 5 Briard 5 Doberman pincher 5 Working German shepherd 30 6 # Bull mastiff 2 Pastoral Old English sheepdog 7 Rottweiler 1 Rough collie 1 Saint Bernard 1 Samoyed 11 6 Siberian husky 6 12 Shetland sheepdog 2 * Terriers include Bedlington, Airedale, Cairn, Glen of Imaal, Border/Smooth collie 107 17 Jack Russell, Norfolk, Scottish, Sky, West highland, Wheaten and Yorkshire terriers. # One German shepherd muzzled

3.5 Dog walker route use

Data collected from VP 1, VP 2 and VP 3 were used to examine dog walker route choices (n = 571; see figure 21). Overall, 57% of owners used the wooden bridge entry route to the Island (see figure 22). Although access to the beach for parking has been removed from the causeway entry route in recent years, this has not affected dog walker use of this entry route with 42% of owners in 2012 using this entry similar to the 43% estimated in the current survey.

Similar percentages of owners headed for the beach upon arrival irrespective of entry route (49% of those using the wooden bridge compared to 47% using the causeway). 14% of owners only used the roadway along the Bull Wall when using the bridge route with 18% heading into the dunes. This compared to 35% of owners using the causeway route turning into the northern dunes and 28% into the southern dunes. Overall, 17% of dog walkers are estimated to use the northern dunes at some stage of their visit with 44% using the southern dunes. Based on these results, restricting dog access to the northern dunes is likely to have a lower impact on amenity use.

Owners of restricted breeds were equally likely to use either entry route and used similar routes to other dog walkers (see figure 23).

Figure 21: Schematic map of North Bull Island indicating the number of dog owners utilizing each route. Arrows indicate direction of movement with looped ends indicating turning points for return journeys.

Figure 22: Schematic map of North Bull Island indicating the percentage of dog owners utilizing each route. Arrows indicate direction of movement with looped ends indicating turning points for return journeys.

Figure 23: Schematic map of North Bull Island indicating the number of restricted breed dog owners utilizing each route. Arrows indicate direction of movement with looped ends indicating turning points for return journeys.

4 Discussion

Having been in decline since the 1990’s evidence now suggests that the Irish hare population on North Bull Island is now extinct with the last recorded sighting during summer 2015. This represents the second species to be lost from within the most designated conservation site in the Republic of Ireland, the first being the breeding colony of Little Tern (Sternula albifrons). Protected areas play a key role in biodiversity conservation. However, the mandate of providing recreational opportunities while preserving natural habitats may result in a conflict between human activities and conservation objectives (Young et al. 2005; Reed and Merenlender 2008). Disturbance due to recreation activities can have significant negative effects on wildlife species within an area (Blanc et al. 2006; George and Crooks 2006; Steven et al. 2011; Navedo and Herrera 2012) and exposure to such disturbance may be particularly high within urban areas. Such is the case in North Bull Island which is nestled in the shadow of a city with an estimated urban population of over half a million people.

The loss of the Irish hare may have long-term consequences for the future of this protected site where the natural process of dune stabilization and plant succession is a threat to protected Annex 1 habitats. The hare was one of only two natural grazer species found on the Island, the other being the European rabbit. Grazers are an important component of sand dune systems as their activities provide suitable conditions for open-ground species (Wallis De Vries and Raemakers 2001) in addition to maintaining species diversity through selective grazing (Ranwell 1972). Rabbits are important grazers and agents of soil disturbance on many dune systems in Europe (Ausden 2007) and the diversity of many dune areas has developed because of a long history of grazing by rabbits (Ranwell 1972). The loss of about 99% of the wild rabbit population in the United Kingdom due to outbreaks of myxomatosis in the 1950s (Thompson 1994) led to marked changes in the vegetation structure of UK dunes. The short, species-rich pre-myxomatosis sward which contained many annuals changed to tall grass and tall herb communities which were gradually invaded by shrubs (Ranwell 1960).

Rabbits were thought to be significant grazers at North Bull Island and significantly affect the flora of the fixed dunes (Wolfe 1995). Fixed dunes (grey dunes) represent a protected Annex 1 habitat on North Bull Island and are particularly vulnerable to the loss of grazers. This habitat is currently assessed as Unfavourable-Bad (stable) (Delaney et al. 2013). Fixed dunes represent the most extensive habitat at North Bull Island supporting several unusual plant and invertebrate species (McCorry and Ryle 2009). Rabbits represent a positive impact in this habitat but much of the site is currently undergrazed and the presence of non-native species also represents a threat. Under-grazing can also lead to the problem of invasion by coarse grasses such as Marram Ammophila arenaria (Ryle et al. 2009).

The rabbit population has thought to have been in decline for a number of years and it is recognised that a crash in numbers resulting in reduced grazing for long period could be detrimental to many of the protected plant species found on North Bull Island (McCorry and Ryle 2009). The fixed dune habitat is already suffering from a lack of grazing (Delaney et al. 2013). Similar to hares, rabbit numbers have fluctuated greatly over the years. They were

24 plentiful on the Island in the 1930’s but had died out or were not recorded on a checklist of mammals in O’Gorman (1977). The population was either re-introduced or recovered and by 1988 was estimated to be ~5000 individuals (Wolfe 1995). Following an outbreak of myxomatosis in 1992 the population declined to between 2000 – 3000 in 1993. Council staff consider the population to still be in decline (McCorry and Ryle 2009; Pat Corrigan personal comment) and an individual with myxomatosis was reported within the last year. Some terriering and ferreting may take place on the Island. In addition control of rabbits on the golf courses has occurred in the past and is likely to occur again as warrens become established within the links areas. The current study estimated a pre-breeding population of around 200 individuals which represents a significantly low population density in comparison to previous estimates. Coupled with the loss of the hare, further declines in the rabbit population could have serious consequences for many protected species and habitats on the Island. It is recommended that the rabbit population is monitored closely in the coming years and conservation action considered if it becomes necessary.

Dog walking activity is a significant component of amenity use by citizens on North Bull Island. Estimates from summer 2014 indicate it represents between 3.5% and 7% of overall activities on the Island (Harris et al. 2014) while observations during the current study indicate a value closer to 50% during spring 2016 (F. Naulty personal observation). It is likely that this activity is the main reason behind the decline and loss of the Irish hare on the Island due to reduced juvenile recruitment. Evidence from the 2012 survey (Naulty and Hayden 2012) and reported sightings in this survey indicated that the last hares were pushed towards the north-west of the Island where both human disturbance and dog walking activity are lowest. With the total loss of hares, the only remedial action open is a population re- introduction from a suitable source site which will require the cause of the previous population extinction to be removed (IUCN 2012).

Apart from disturbance, the Island is therefore still a suitable habitat for hares. There have been no major changes to the Island’s habitats and the two most important grass species in the diet of the hares (Festuca rubra, red fescue and Lolium perenne, perennial rye grass; Wolfe et al. 1996) are still abundant. Predation by foxes is not considered to be an excessive threat with only an estimate 1 – 2 pairs residing on the Island similar to the estimate from 2012. Extensive dog activity in the dune area coupled with an 80% lack of compliance with on lead rules make these areas unsuitable for hare resting areas during the daytime and particularly unsuitable breeding locations. Even if the dogs on leads policy was fully effective, the number of paths used and the increasing popularity of 3 – 5m extendable leads would still result in much disturbance of the dune area (Naulty and Hayden 2012). Permanent refuge areas where dogs are excluded are a necessary requirement before any re-introduction can take place.

Wolfe (1995) made two suggestions with regard to refuge area. The first suggestion was to construct an exclusion zone along the seaward edge of the Royal Dublin Gold Course. However he considered that this option would prove expensive and be difficult to enforce due to the amenity use in the area. McCorry and Ryle (2009) considered the creation of hare refuges within the fixed dune area likely to have significant impacts on the amenity use of

25 certain parts of the Island and also did not recommended their use. A second option considered involved encouraging the golf courses to set areas of rough grass aside and place them out of bounds during the hare breeding season. Some areas of rough grass are currently present in the links areas but these are not out of bounds to golfers. The grass growing there although uncut is short and may not provide adequate shelter for hares (F. Naulty personal observation). Activity on the golf courses both by golfers and green staff is also notably high. Additionally, an active fox den is also located within one of these areas in the Royal Dublin Golf Course grounds.

Based on the usage patterns observed in the current study, a more suitable solution may be a refuge area in the northern dunes. This area is currently the least used by dog walkers with an estimated 17% of owners choosing to include it in their walking route. Removing dogs from this area would also benefit ground nesting bird species such as Skylark (Alauda arvensis) and Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis) in addition to reducing pressure on the northern tip of the Island where the Little Tern colony used to breed. This tip is also where seals traditionally tend to haul out. However, such activity is reported to have been absent recently possibly due to the level of disturbance by walkers and dogs (Dublin City Council 2014).

In addition to a refuge area for daytime resting sites and breeding locations, a re-introduction will also likely require enforcement of the dogs on lead policy on the Island. The presence of loose dogs within the dune areas make those areas unsuitable for use by hares reducing habitat availability with consequential reductions in carrying capacity for the Island. There is also nothing to stop a dog off the lead from chasing any animal encountered irrespective of location. Enforcement of the policy is likely to meet with resistance but will both improve public safety on the Island and have positive benefits for its wildlife, in particular bird species. Six instances of loose dogs chasing birds on the beach were witnessed during this study in addition to three instances of dogs chasing a runner in the dunes and kite surfers on the beach. Owners with restricted breeds regularly use the Island and fail to comply with either the law concerning lead use for these breeds and more concerning muzzle rules. Only one German shepherd out of a total of 52 sightings of six restricted breeds was both on a lead and muzzled. At one point during surveying I was surrounded by four German shepherds, a Staffordshire bull terrier and a Bull mastiff all of which were off the lead.

Increased signage is recommended in addition to a public education campaign to highlight the conservation benefits to dog restrictions. The current signage is old and worn looking and missing in some access areas such as the corner of the Royal Dublin Golf Course where an estimated 14% of dog owners commence their walking route. There is recognition that the dog rule has implications for wildlife but more education is clearly required. For example, two separate dog walkers during this survey asked about when Skylarks nested as they recognised they needed to put their dogs on leads during that time but failed to realise they might be affected other species. Offering an alternative could also aid enforcement. For example, provision of a larger off-lead area within St. Anne’s park could potentially aid in lead enforcement on the Island in addition to reducing resistance to a hare refuge area off limits to dog walkers.

Conclusions

The North Bull Island hare population is now extinct and the rabbit population is also in decline. This represents the second species lost from the area. The loss of grazing activity is already having an impact on Annex 1 Fixed Dune habitat and if not rectified within a reasonable time-frame may have serious consequences for other rare and protected species found on the Island. Disturbance by dog walkers is still considered the likely cause of the decline and loss of the hare population. This activity has shown a slight increase since the 2012 survey and compliance with the on lead policy has remained the same at 21%. Closure of the beach car-park at the causeway has not changed dog walking activity patterns with owners either walking onto the Island or parking along the causeway. The northern dunes are the least used area by dog walkers with only 17% including them in their route choice. This area therefore represents the best option for potential implementation of a dog-free hare refuge zone. Such an action would also benefit other species such as ground nesting birds and seals.

Recommended actions to facilitate application for a translocation licence

1. Increased signage and enforcement of the dogs on lead policy

This is a first step in making the Island suitable for hares and will ensure as much habitat as possible is available for carrying capacity estimates needed for Population Viability Analysis. Enforcement will also benefit public safety and other wildlife species and compliance will likely need to be documented for a licence application. An education campaign on the benefits for species conservation could aid enforcement resistance.

2. Identification and designation of an appropriate hare refuge area

It is suggested that an area of the northern dunes is used as a refuge area. This area will need to be in place and compliance by dog walkers will need to be demonstrated. The provision of an alternative location for dog walking and/or a hare conservation public awareness campaign may aid acceptance of such a measure. A re-introduction will necessitate the use of holding pens for a period prior to release to settle the animals particularly in light of the failure of the hard release introduction in 1995. Such pens should be within the refuge area allowing new animals to acclimatise in a less disturbed area.

3. Enforcement of dog restrictions with refuge area

An initial period of education and enforcement will likely be required to achieve compliance with the restricted refuge area. A licence application should be able to demonstrate that the area achieves its aim of reduced disturbance in addition to ensuring that the area will be maintained into the future.

4. Engage with golf clubs to discuss provision of areas of out-of-bounds rough grass

The provision of golfer out-of-bounds areas during the hare breeding season should be discussed with the golf clubs. Such areas could vary between years with the sole requirement of being stable during breeding. Engaging with hare conservation could bring additional publicity for the clubs and unlike rabbits; hares are unlikely to damage the green areas.

5. Conduct a public awareness campaign around Bull Island to gain public support

Public support is vital to a conservation project in such a public area. A correctly run public awareness campaign should aid in enforcement of dogs restriction rules in addition to deterring potential negative reactions to new animals such as attempts at coursing.

Acknowledgements

This survey was funded by a research grant to Dr Favel Naulty by Dublin City Council. Hare images were provided by William Clarke, UCD. The survey would not have been possible without access provided by both The Royal Dublin Golf Club and St. Anne’s Golf Club and the helpful comments of their respective staff. Special thanks to Eoin O’Sullivan from the Royal Dublin Golf Club and Niall Carroll from St. Anne’s Golf Club. Grateful thanks for fieldwork assistance to Carin Stritch, Dr. Jan-Robert Baars and the UCD MSc class in Applied Environmental Science.

References

Anon. (2005) All Ireland Species Action Plans. Irish Lady’s-tresses (Spiranthes romanzoffiana), Pollan (Coregonus autumnalis), Hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus), Corncrake (Crex crex). National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin and Environment and Heritage Service, Department of the Environment, Belfast.

Ausden, M. (2007) Habitat Management for Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques: A Handbook of Techniques. OUP Oxford.

Banks, P.B. and Bryant, J.V. (2007) Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas. Biological letters 3:611-613.

Blanc, R., Guillemain, M., Mouronval, J.-B., Desmonts, D. and Fritz, H. (2006) Effects of nonconsumptive leisure disturbance to wildlife. Revue D Ecologie-La Terre Et La Vie 61:117– 133.

Curtis, T.G.F. and McGough, H.N. (1988) The Irish Red Data Book 1: Vascular Plants. Stationery Office, Dublin.

Delaney, A., Devaney, F.M, Martin, J.M. and Barron, S.J. (2013) Monitoring survey of Annex I sand dune habitats in Ireland. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 75. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland.

Dingerkus, S. K. (1997) The distribution and ecology of the Irish hare Lepus timidus hibernicus in Northern Ireland. Unpublished PhD thesis. The Queen’s University of Belfast.

Dingerkus, S. K. and Montgomery, W. I. (2002) A review of the status and decline in abundance of the Irish hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus) in Northern Ireland. Mammal Review, 32:1-11.

Dublin City Council (1998) Control of Dogs Bye-laws 1998. Dublin City Council.

Dublin City Council (2014) North Bull Island UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Periodic Review. Dublin City Council.

Dublin Corporation (1994) The North Bull Island Special Amenity Area Order - report. Dublin Corporation, Dublin.

Flux, J. E. C. and Angermann, R. (1990) Chapter 4: The Hares and Jackrabbits. In: J. A. Chapman and J. E. C. Flux (eds), Rabbits, Hares and Pikas: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan, pp. 61-94. The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

George, S.L. and Crooks, K.R. (2006) Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biological Conservation 133:107–117.

Hamill, R.M., Doyle, D. and Duke, E.J. (2006) Spatial patterns of genetic diversity across European subspecies of mountain hare, Lepus timidus L. Heredity, 97:1-11.

Harris, M., Walsh, S. And Herbert, A. (2014) Recreational usage of North Bull Island UNESCO Biosphere. Dublin City Council.

Hayden, T. & Harrington, R. (2000) Exploring Irish mammals. Town House & Country House Ltd., Dublin. Ireland.

Hughes, M., Montgomery, I. and Prodöhl, P. (2006) Population genetic structure and systematics of the Irish hare. A report prepared by Quercus for the Environment and Heritage Service, Belfast.

IUCN (1987) The IUCN Position Statement on Translocation of Living Organisms. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK.

IUCN (1998) Guidelines for Re-introductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

IUCN (2012) Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Jeffrey, R. (1997) Aspects of the ecology and behaviour of the Irish hare, Lepus timidus hibernicus (Bell, 1837) on lowland farmland. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Trinity College Dublin.

Kolb, H.H. (1991) Use of burrows and movements by wild rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) on an area of sand dunes. Journal of Applied Ecology 28:879-891.

Lemnell, A. and Lindlof, B. (1981) Diurnal and seasonal activity pattern in the mountain hare. In: Proceedings of the World Lagomorph Conference, Gland. 1981. Ed. by K. Myers and C. D. Macinnes. Ontario: University of Guelph. Pp. 349-356.

Lenth, B.E., Knight, R.L. and Brennan, M.E. (2008) The effects of dogs on wildlife communities. Natural Areas Journal 28:218–227.

Marnell, F., Kingston, N. and Looney, D. (2009) Ireland Red List No. 3: Terrestrial Mammals. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.

MacArthur, R.A., Geist, V. and Johnston, R.H. (1982) Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358.

McCorry, M. and Ryle, T. (2009) A Management plan for North Bull Island. Dublin City Council.

Miller, S.G., Knight, R.L. and Miller, C.K. (2001) Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124–132.

Mitchell-Jones, A.J., Amori, G., Bogdanowicz, W., Kryštufek, B., Reijnders, P.J.H., Spitzenberger, F., Stubbe, M., Thissen, J.B.M., Vohralik, V. and Zima, J. 1999. The Atlas of European Mammals. Academic Press, London, UK.

Naulty, F. and Hayden, T.J. (2012) North Bull Island Hare Survey 2012. Unpublished report to Dublin City Council from the School of Biology and Environmental Science, University College Dublin.

Navedo, J.G. and Herrera, A.G. (2012) Effects of recreational disturbance on tidal wetlands: supporting the importance of undisturbed roosting sites for waterbird conservation. Journal of Coast Conservation 16:373–381.

O’Gorman (1977) Mammals of the island. In North Bull Island, Dublin Bay – A modern coastal natural history. Royal Dublin Society.

O’Mahony, E. (1931) Notes on the mammals of the North Bull Island, Dublin Bay. Irish Naturalists Journal 3:199-200.

Pielowski, Z. (1976) Cats and dogs in the European hare hunting ground. Pp. 153-156 in Z. Pielowski and Z. Pucek (eds.), Ecology & Management of European hare populations. Polish Hunting Association, Warsaw.

Ranwell, D.S. (1960) Newborough Warren, Anglesey. III. Changes in the vegetation on parts of the dune system after the loss of rabbits by myxomatosis. Journal of Ecology 48: 385–395.

Ranwell, D.S. (1972) Ecology of salt marshes and sand dunes. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.

Reed, S.E, and Merenlender, A.M. (2008) Quiet, nonconsumptive recreation reduces protected area effectiveness. Conservation Letters 1:146–154

Reid, N. (2006) Conservation Ecology of the Irish Hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus). Unpublished PhD thesis, Queens University, Belfast.

Reid, N., Harrison, A.T. and Robb, G.N. (2009) Northern Ireland Irish hare survey 2009. Report prepared by the Natural Heritage Research Partnership, Quercus for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Northern Ireland Environment Agency Research and Development Series No. 09/04.

Reid, N., Dingerkus, K., Montgomery, W.I., Marnell, F., Jeffrey, R., Lynn, D., Kingston, N. and McDonald, R.A. (2007) Status of hares in Ireland. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 30. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.

Ryle T, Connelly, K., Murray, A. and Swan, M. (2009) Coastal Monitoring Project. Unpublished survey for the National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin.

Smith, A.T. and Johnston, C.H. (2008) Lepus timidus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species e.T11791A3306541.http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T11791A3306541.en Downloaded on 06 May 2016.

Smith, R. K., Vaughan-Jennings, N. and Harris, S. (2005) A quantitative analysis of the abundance and demography of European hares Lepus europaeus in relation to habitat type, intensity of agriculture and climate. Mammal Review, 35: 1-24.

Steven, R., Pickering, C. and Castley, J.G. (2011) A review of the impacts of nature based recreation on birds. Journal of Environmental Management 92:2287-2294.

Tapper, S. C. and Barnes, R. F. W. (1986) Influence of farming practice on the ecology of the brown hare (Lepus europaeus). Journal of Applied Ecology 23:39-52.

Taylor, K., Anderson, P., Taylor, R., Longden, K. and Fisher, P. (2005) Dogs, Access and Nature Conservation. English Nature Research Report no. 649. Peterborough, UK: English Nature.

Thompson, H.V. 1994. The rabbit in Britain. In: Thompson, H.V. & King, C.M. (eds.) The European rabbit. The history and biology of a successful colonizer. pp. 64–107. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Wallis de Vries, M.F. and Raemakers, I. (2001) Does extensive grazing benefit butterflies in coastal dunes. Restoration Ecology 9, 179-188.

Wolfe, A. (1995) A study of the ecology of the Irish mountain hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus) with some considerations for its management and that of the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) on North Bull Island, Dublin Bay. PhD Thesis. University College Dublin.

Wolfe, A., Whelan, J. and Hayden, T.J. (1996) The diet of the mountain hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus) on coastal grassland. Journal of the Zoological Society of London, 240:804- 810.

Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B. And Bulsara, M. (2005) The pet connection: pets as a conduit for social capital? Social Science and Medicine 61:1159-1173.

Yalden, P.E. and Yalden, D.W. (1990) Recreational disturbance of breeding golden plovers. Biological Conservation 51:243–262.

Young, J., Watt, A., Nowicki, P., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Henle, K., Johnson, R., Laczko, E., McCracken, D., Matouch, S., Niemela, J. and Richards, C. (2006) Towards sustainable land use: identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:1641–1661.