| Author |
Comment
|
Martin Bailey W&CS
Jan 17, 05 - 11:53 AM |
Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
What do people think about this issue?
There are many examples of native species which are adversely affected by non-natives, e.g. red squirrels vs grey squirrels; white-clawed crayfish vs signal crayfish; water voles vs mink; native plants vs rhododendron, laurel, knotweed, etc.
Red squirrels are likely to become totally extinct throughout England, Wales & Ireland, except for island populations, unless the grey squirrel can be removed. Even in Scotland, the future for red squirrels looks bleak.
Native crayfish are disappearing from rivers where the signal crayfish has moved in.
Water voles have suffered massive declines, at least partly due to the widespread mink.
Rhododendrons, and other non-native plants, cover large areas of our countryside, excluding native species.
What should be done about these issues?
Tell us what you think!!
|
Richard
Jan 25th, 2005 - 10:13 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Hi Martin
This is a really difficult issue as most people, myself included, look at a Grey Squirrel for example as a nice and friendly creature - especially when you see them in places such as the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh where people have traditionally fed them. And I suspect that many of us also look upon a hedgehog with fondness and don't appreciate the damage they can do on locations such a small Scottish Island, where they are not native and where birds have their eggs in hollows in the ground. As you know the birds are then put at risk with their numbers greatly reduced.
I think it comes down to educating people that native wildlife is a treasure worth looking after and that while other animals also have a "right" to life (in my opinion) that management of their numbers are also required to ensure the survival of native animals including the Red Squirrel for example, and to reduce suffering as in the case of Red Deer when their numbers are more than can be sustained by the landscape.
However, I am not in favour of re-introducing previously native animals such as wolves into Scotland, I do not see the environmental argument for this as the risks in such a small country as ours is simply not worth it. Is is far better to set our aim at keeping alive rare and valuable native species.
Richard
|
Victor
Dec 19th, 2005 - 5:34 PM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
In most cases alien species are accidentily introduced, s.a. grey squirel. In other cases they are introduced on purpose, s.a. rabbit by the Romans. In the case of rabbits you are not going to find many people who want to get rid of rabbits. Yet in Australia & New zealand they introduced "rabbit created deseases" to rid these countries from rabbits. Martin,I now that you do not agree with me on the "sterile insect technology" for mammals, but in Tasmania they have sterilised fox ******* and with hormones produced Red Hot Mamas. With these r.h.m. they catch foxes who roam Tasmania. There are not that many, but they try to get rid of them before they are establisth in Tasmania. This is because most of their birds are groundnesting. On Guam they have established treesnake and birdlife is less than 1% of those that was before investation with treesnake. The treesnake was accidental introduced during WW2 by the Japanese.
Like with wild boar in UK, they are also on the continent, in Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany etc. I have known people whose car got hit by one and I had a near-hit by one and I can tell you its scarry.
I believe as long as you are not involved everything is alright until your car gets hit. Ones in a while you see a roadvictim (animal) usely a rabbit or a fox. These don't push you of the road, but a wild boar will!
In US they have Formosian termites and they have a real battle on their hands. It is worth checking F.t. on www.
|
Martin Bailey W&CS
Dec 20th, 2005 - 1:43 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Hi Victor,
I think it often depends on how long these animals have been present, e.g. rabbits have been here several hundred years, and whether they do major damage to native species - many of our native predators now rely on rabbits as an easy source of food, so when they suffer major declines it affects the numbers of our predators.
The main reason for the removal of the fox from Tasmania is because it kills a wide range of native wildlife, including bettongs, pademelons and native mice. It is also a threat to the native predators such as quolls, as it is bigger and a more efficient predator, and will probably also eat them. Australia has lost a large number of native species, due to humans and the animals and plants they have introduced. Foxes were apparently introduced to Tasmania for hunting, which just goes to show how selfish these people are. Tasmania is the last place you can find many native Australian animals, such as the quolls, Tasmanian devils, and others, so it is vital that non-natives are ruthlessly extirminated before Tasmania becomes just the same as the mainland. It is a very special place, and I spent 3 months there watching and photographing the wildlife, and helping with research. It is unbelievable that some of the unique habitats on the island are still threatened by commercial logging of old-growth forests, and the use of 1080 poison which wipes out countless numbers of native animals, which suffer a very painful death - check out the links to Gunns here and here for more details (look for the not-so-jolly Swagman!!)
Martin.
|
Victor
Dec 24th, 2005 - 3:24 PM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Foxes were introduced to Australia and New Zealand, not to Tasmania. The few that are on Tasmania jumped ship when berthed at Tasmania. How did you like the news on the Red Hot Mamas?
|
Angus Macmillan
Jan 3rd, 2006 - 1:59 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
I don't agree that so-called alien species should be killed at all to protect natives.
By all means those with an interest in preserving native species should be encouragesd to do so but not at the expense of killing members of other species. Trapping aliens and relocating them would be an acceptable method but killing animals such as Uist Hedgehogs and Grey Squirrel is completely unacceptable and a form of ethnic cleansing, which if perpetrated against humans would be a crime.
|
Martin Bailey W&CS
Jan 3rd, 2006 - 4:06 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
So what do you do when the survival of a native species is entirely dependent on the removal of a non-native competitor/predator and there is no option for relocation of the non-native?? Let the native species become extinct?? If so, that would mean the probable extinction of red squirrels, white-clawed crayfish and water voles in the UK. Would that be acceptable??
|
Angus Macmillan
Jan 3rd, 2006 - 8:06 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Absolutely.
In my view there is no case for killing members of one species, native or otherwise, to promote the population of another.
The "alien" species have as much a right to live on any part of this planet as we do.
If people want to start a breeding program for native species that is commendable but ethnic cleansing should not be tolerated.
|
Martin Bailey W&CS
Jan 3rd, 2006 - 9:12 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
I assume you are against the killing of any animal for any reason, and are a strict vegetarian eating no animal of any kind, and using no animal products other than those obtained from live animals for clothing etc? If this is the case I respect your position.
|
Angus Macmillan
Jan 3rd, 2006 - 4:21 PM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
No I'm not. And I'm not against the farming of domesticated animals.
What I oppose is the killing of wild animals to suit the selfish agendas of humans.
We should tolerate species from other parts of the planet and value them as individuals just as we should with human immigrants. There is no place for killing animals or humans based on fanatical and extremist beliefs.
|
Martin Bailey W&CS
Jan 3rd, 2006 - 4:55 PM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
So, are you against the killing of wild animals for food? Or for other human agendas?
I agree that all animals have rights, including humans, but would maintain that native species have more right to life in their native habitats than non-natives that would wipe them out. This, of course, only applies where the non-natives have been artificially introduced, deliberately or accidentally, by humans. If grey squirrels, for example, had arrived on floating debris from America they could be said to be a natural part of the evolution of the wildlife of the UK. They did not. They were deliberately introduced by short-sighted individuals for their own pleasure, with no thought given to the likely consequences. While these animals have a right to live in their own ecological niche, and even here if they could coexist with our native wildlife, the fact remains that without some sort of control, our native species is unlikely to survive. And if the grey squirrels introduced to Italy should manage to cross the Alps, they have the potential to push red squirrels to extinction throughout most of mainland Europe. Would you happily watch a species being wiped out rather than kill a few grey squirrels to stop their advance?? There is also the issue of the millions of small birds whose nests are raided by grey squirrels every year. Don't they have rights too? What about the rare dormouse whose food the grey squirrels take? Are they an acceptable casualty? Do you find acceptable the predation of our waterfowl and water voles by the introduced American mink? Water voles have suffered a 95% decline, and are now extinct in many/most areas of the UK. Would you be happy to see them disappear completely? I assume that you never kill mice or rats which enter your house? What about greenfly and blackfly and other garden 'pests'? Possibly, like me, you live with them? If so, well done. If not, ......
|
Angus Macmillan
Jan 4th, 2006 - 9:33 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
If I have heard this argumant once, I have heard it a thousand times. It's deeply flawed and if you don't mind me say so, complete nonsense. It is the standard conservationists' line.
Man is part of nature and every action he takes is a result of his evolution including the tansportation of, and keeping of animals, for his satisfaction and pleasure. If man transports an animal from another part of the planet, it is part of the process of his evolution and it is absolutely wrong to assume otherwise.
To place man's activities and desires outside nature is ridiculous.
|
Martin Bailey W&CS
Jan 4th, 2006 - 4:26 PM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
So, by your own argument, man's wish to protect endangered species by killing non-native invaders is also an evolved behaviour, and therefore equally valid??
|
Angus Macmillan
Jan 5th, 2006 - 1:10 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
No, because they're not an alien species if they reach a destination by an ongoing evolutionary process of thousands of years, whether it be their own or a that of a carrier.
After all, all species evolve in different ways in accordance with their environment and contact with other species in many different ways.
|
Fiona Cresswell
Jan 5th, 2006 - 7:26 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
I don't believe it could ever be right to kill members of one species to 'help' another. In most cases, where non-native species have been introduced, it is humans that are at fault and I agree with the person who said it is like ethnic cleansing to try and wipe out whole populations of a species. How long ago does a species need to have arrived in Britain to be considered native? To look at the bigger picture, I don't believe humans evolved simultainiously across the world - Are we therefore a non-native species in the UK which needs to be controlled?
After all, It would be true to say that we are the animal most responsible for causing the extinction of other species, both historically and currently.
Habitat distruction, climate change, hunting, culling, introduction of new diseases and predators are all examples which spring to mind.
|
Martin Bailey W&CS
Jan 5th, 2006 - 8:17 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Hi Fiona,
I agree that humans are at fault, and that it is effectively ethnic cleansing to attempt to wipe out whole populations of a species. I guess that makes me an ethnic cleanser? I'm also a conservationist and an ardent supporter of animal rights and anti-cruelty. It is generally accepted that native species of animals and plants are those which have made their way here unassisted since the end of the last Ice Age. Grey squirrels have been established around 100 years, during which time they have pushed the red squirrel, which has been here for 8,000 - 10,000 years, to extinction through most of its range, and also caused countless damage to nesting birds.
You are right when you state that humans didn't evolve simultaneously around the world. We spread across the continents, replacing other hominid species as we went. The difference is that our spread was natural, i.e. unassisted. Since that time we have decimated the flora and fauna of the planet, and are now poised to destroy what is left. Conservation involves trying to stem the tide of human destruction, by whatever means is most effective.
Would you be happy to see red squirrels, water voles, etc. become extinct? How about island birds wiped out by introduced rats?
Perhaps, as our spread can be argued to be natural, the mass extinction we are now causing is also natural and we shouldn't do anything to try to curb global warming and the destruction of the rainforests? This will certainly push millions of species to extinction, and will decimate human populations, but if it is natural should we let it happen or try to mitigate the damage. The ultimate result could be a runaway greenhouse effect, leaving Earth like Mars!!
|
Fiona Cresswell
Jan 5th, 2006 - 8:59 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Hi Martin,
I'm sorry if you thought I was being rude by the ethnic cleansing comment - I wasn't intending to refer to you specifically.
When I said I thought it was cruel to shoot the squirrels this was more a comment on DEFRA worker's ability to shoot humanely: I read a report by a vet following DEFRA as they shot badgers, describing one individual badger having to be shot several times as they missed the head, and also occurances of badgers shaking in the cage in an attempt to escape, making it impossible to get a clear shot. Therefore if they are unable to shoot a large target such as a badger - how can we be sure that they could kill a squirrel without causing it suffering?
So, assuming that culling of squirrels could be carried out without causing any suffering - (and I'm not sure how you'd get around the distress caused by being in a trap/being poisined) - It is not necessary everywhere. Am I correct in thinking that Red Squirrel populations are very limited in number and there are none in Devon where I live? If so, there is probably not a lot of point in trying to control Greys here anyway. You would have more of a case on the edges of Red Territory in the North of England or Scotland.
I would be very sad to see the extinction of any native species. I like Red Squirrels and once had a very enjoyable trip to Brownsea Island to see them. However, I could not accept killing of Grey Squirrels, there must be a better way - would the suggestion of a contraceptive pill be a silly idea?
By the way I a am vegan, plastic shoe wearing and non- animal tested toiletries wearing, respect for all things furry kind of person so I try not to be a hypocrite. My main inconsistancy would have to be my dislike of people keeping domestic cats, creating an unnatural proportion of predators which kill masses of wildlife.
Incidentally, the cull of rats on Lundy Island several years ago was wrong. I looked into it and discovered that it was the decline in their food source (sand eels) which was causing the demise of the Puffin and Manx Shearwater. Now having killed all the rats, the eco system is unbalanced and English Nature are saying that there are too many rabbits (without the rats to eat the babies) and they want to cull them too. It strikes me that it would have been better to leave well alone in the beginning. Also the species of rat that was culled (by the inhumane method of poisen) was the rare black or ship rat. Do you think that the rats should have been entitled to protection as well?
Fiona
P.S. Appologies for long post and bad spelling!
|
Martin Bailey W&CS
Jan 5th, 2006 - 9:57 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Hi Fiona,
I agree that it is difficult to shoot animals in traps, and it can also damage the traps!! Obviously any animal in a trap is going to be distressed, but most of the stress is during the few minutes when the trapper returns to the trap, before the animal is killed or released. A squirrel can be killed within a couple of minutes without using firearms, pointed sticks or poisons; i.e. in a humane manner.
Red squirrels in England are now confined to the Isle of Wight, Brownsea Island, Cumbria and Northumberland - everywhere else they are extinct!! In Wales, there are still red squirrels on Anglesey (where I have been working), Clocaenog Forest near Ruthin in North Wales, and the Tywi/Crychan/Irfon forest area in Mid Wales. In Scotland, grey squirrels are spreading rapidly through the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway, and they have been in the Central Belt between Glasgow and Edinburgh for years. Greys are also present in other areas of Scotland and the red squirrel is on the retreat. Initial work must concentrate on keeping grey squirrels away from red squirrels, so intensive control is necessary in these areas. Killing them is the only humane way. In the longer term, it is hoped that an oral contraceptive would enable large-scale reductions of the grey squirrel population, enabling red squirrels to recolonise. Ideally, this would be a nationwide programme to prevent grey squirrels breeding throughout the UK, resulting in their extinction. Red squirrels could then be reintroduced. On Anglesey, we have removed (killed) most of the grey squirrels on the island, saving the few remaining red squirrels from certain extinction in the nick of time. Anglesey is also the site of the only successful reintroduction in the UK of red squirrels to a site where grey squirrels were established - see the picture at www.wildlifeservices.co.uk/management.htm
I agree with your opinion of domestic cats, although I too like individual cats. They are also an example of a non-native species which is causing massive damage worldwide, including Scotland where they are exterminating the Scottish Wildcat through hybridisation - the Scottish Wildcat is found nowhere else in the world!! Grey squirrels cause tremendous damage to nesting birds, due to their high densities - greys can happily live at a density 5+ times that of the red squirrel, so can cause 5+ times the predation pressure.
I admire your "vegan, plastic shoe wearing and non- animal tested toiletries wearing, respect for all things furry" position.
I think you'll find that the puffins wouldn't be able to maintain their breeding success in the presence of rats, even if there were sufficient sand-eels, so I would agree with the removal of the rats. However, the removal of rabbits may be harder to justify - on Puffin Island in North Wales the rats wiped out the puffins, so the rats were poisoned. I understand that the vegetation is now too tall for the puffins because the rats were eating the plants. I don't know if there are any rabbits on Puffin Island, but assume that if there were they would keep the vegetation down. Maybe someone else can comment on this??
I thought the black rat was a protected species?? Maybe as a relatively recent introduction it was decided it didn't belong. They are certainly very rare now, having been pushed out by the brown rat (sound familiar?).
|
Fiona Cresswell
Jan 6th, 2006 - 1:29 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Hi Martin,
Yes I thought the black rat was a protected species too as it is really quite rare.
My cynical suspicion has always been that English Nature decided to cull them because they think Puffins are cuter (the bambi image strikes again!) and the puffins are a symbol of the island being used on postage stamps etc.
The reason they now want to kill the rabbits is because without the rats controlling them, they are apparently eating too much of the vegetation. In the case of Lundy, this is not seen as a good thing because the vegetation includes the very very rare Lundy Cabbage plant, which is (I think) unique to Lundy.
So for the Lundy Cabbage, the situation has been made worse and the rats predating on the rabbits was neccessary for it to grow without being grazed to the ground.
The rats were not native to Lundy, which is only a couple of miles long, but they had been there for a few hundred years. I don't know which of the few species to be found there are native, the herd of sheep are certainly not.
I would argue that it was the rats who were more in need of protection, as the Puffins and Manx Shearwater had other habitats they could fly too, and it was not fully established that the rats were to blame for their demise. I saw some reports which analysed the stomach content of rats caught there. From memory it mostly consisted of vegtable matter, and some seabird chicks, (I would suggest they ate the carrion of chicks that died/fell from the nest rater than predating on the seabirds) There was either none or a very insignificant amount of of egg protein in the stomachs, which would contradict EN's
assertion that it was the rats eating the eggs of
Puffins and Shearwaters that was the problem.
Fiona
|
Fiona Cresswell
Jan 6th, 2006 - 1:42 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Hi Martin,
With regard to your point about the trapping, It is not always true to say that animals don't feel distress in a trap until the trapper arrives. In the case of trapped badgers, this is certainly not so. During extensive periods of monitering cull areas, I came across many trapped badgers. A small minority seemed not to be that bothered, but many would be frantically throwing themselves around to escape. The worst ones were the dejected, sad ones, which had been incarcerated for up to 12 hours and had dug up all the soil below the cage until they were exhausted and brown with mud.
In the case of pheasants, many of which are caught in badger traps, they very often kill themselves trying to escape from the cage. Most often they are found with bleading head wounds where they have repeatedly fown into the roof of the cage, if left for several hours they break their own necks.
I cannot really speak for squirrels, because I havn't come across that many caught in badger traps, but I would assume that any wild animal trapped in an enclosed space will make a bid for freedom and become agitated and distressed when they cannot escape.
Fiona
|
Angus Macmillan
Mar 28th, 2006 - 2:55 PM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Alien conservationists!
“Save our native red squirrels and kill the alien greys”, is the message being churned out by so-called conservationists in a cynical and concerted hate campaign aimed at gaining public approval for the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of these harmless, amusing, friendly and social animals.
So what’s behind all this and is it justified? Of course it’s not!
It is beyond dispute that the grey squirrel species originated from America but it is also beyond dispute that individual greys born here are native to this country. The very meaning of the word “native” is to be born, and it is grey squirrels born here and native to this country that are being mercilessly slaughtered. And when a grey squirrel is shot or poisoned it is not the “species” that is being killed - it's the native individual.
By the same token, individual red squirrels are also native to this country but it is questionable whether the ancestors of the current population in Scotland were any less “alien” than the ancestors of the greys. Around the mid 1800s red squirrels were considered extinct in Scotland and were introduced from a variety of sources. The population increased successfully, only to be killed in large numbers by landowners who considered them as pests. Ironically this is what’s happening to greys now.
The idea that the pox virus is transmitted from greys to reds is far from proven. Indeed, it has been suggested the same virus might well have caused a previous population decline in reds, long before grey squirrels existed in the UK. Furthermore, the government’s Joint Nature Conservation Website states the following:
· The origin of squirrel poxvirus in red squirrels is unknown
· Research shows that the antibodies to the virus are common in some grey squirrel populations but only one case of disease has been found in a grey squirrel, whilst very few red squirrels carry the antibodies to the virus.
· It is therefore possible that grey squirrels act as a reservoir host (carrier) for the virus whilst the majority of red squirrels affected with poxvirus appear to die within a week of becoming infected.
A policy of slaughter meted out to grey squirrels based on unknowns and possibilities is as outrageous as it is unfair.
This policy against grey squirrels is one of intolerance and discrimination and has an almost exact parallel to that of pre-war Nazi Germany where the same venom and hate was directed at people deemed not to be genetically pure, of ethnic origin or in numbers that were considered to be a threat to the Aryan population. This led to millions of innocent people being slaughtered in the following years. It’s worth bearing in mind that Intolerance of animals is only one step from intolerance of humans.
Saving the red squirrel population is desirable but not to the extent of slaughtering greys. Improving the reds habitat, which could include planting appropriate tree species such as Scots pine, larch, Norway spruce, lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, yew, hawthorn and even the North American Sitca spruce are all measures that can favour red squirrels. Other native and non-native species can be planted to act as barriers to greys in areas inhabited by reds. These solutions are well known to conservationists but intensely disliked because it goes against their obsession for all things native.
So the next time you see a grey squirrel remember he was born here and is just as “native” as us - and forget what the conservation fanatics want you to believe, that he is some form of alien being.
Indeed, if there are any “aliens” among us, it’s the conservationists; not the grey squirrels.
Angus Macmillan
March 2006.
|
Martin Bailey W&CS
May 15th, 2006 - 2:28 PM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Angus,
I would agree that grey squirrels are amusing, friendly (unless you annoy them!) and social animals, but they are far from harmless, taking many birds' eggs and nestlings, causing extensive damage to trees, and, of course, inexorably pushing the red squirrel to extinction.
You state that improving the red squirrels' habitat can reduce the risk from grey squirrels. This has certainly been suggested, usually by those who would rather try 'cheap'n'cheerful' methods than more costly and effective methods. The fact is that grey squirrels can not be stopped by planting different tree species, as they are quite able to survive in forests of pine, spruce, etc. We removed (killed) over 500 grey squirrels from a 700ha Corsican pine forest, where they had wiped out the red squirrels and were happily breeding and spreading out into the surrounding broadleaved woodland!! Planting tree species to act as a barrier to an arboreal mammal is patently absurd. Grey squirrels will cross open hillsides and even short stretches of sea, so a few trees aren't going to stop them.
"Native" has the following definitions:
Original or usual inhabitant of a country; Indigenous animal or plant; Born in a place, indigenous, not exotic.
"Indigenous" - Native, belonging naturally.
"Exotic" - Introduced from abroad.
|
Angus Macmillan
Jun 18th, 2006 - 9:12 AM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Martin
You're really quite wrong about all this.
It is universally recognised that the planting of different tree types can favour reds and discourage greys. Grey squirrels are not "the Crusaders"; they can be manipulated into areas that best suit them and discouraged from others where the reds are. They do not attack or threaten reds in any way.
The cheap and cheerful way is to kill greys and this should not be tolerated by those who believe in fairness and tolerance.
The red squirrel is also the most numerous on the planet where its range is from Northern Europe to Asia. So there's no shortage of them.
Angus Macmillan
|
Martin Bailey
Jun 18th, 2006 - 12:52 PM |
Re: Should non-native species be removed to aid native species??
Angus,
It is not 'universally recognised' at all!! It is hoped by some that planting certain species of tree will slow down or prevent the spread of grey squirrels, but I have seen first hand that grey squirrels will travel through dense stands of Sitka spruce and other squirrel-unfriendly tree species. They will survive in hedgerows, cross open fields and hillsides, swim rivers and the sea. In short, nothing will stop their spread except large areas which are unsuited to terrestrial animals, such as deserts and the open sea - we don't have any deserts!! Grey squirrels can not be manipulated into certain areas, and certainly can't be discouraged from areas where red squirrels occur - any area with red squirrels is ripe for grey squirrel invasion!! Grey squirrels threaten red squirrels in the most fundamental way - they out-compete them for food resources. Simply put, there will never be enough food to support a native red population and an invading grey population, which is why the whole of the south of England has lost its red squirrels, regardless of tree species present.
Killing grey squirrels is neither cheap, nor cheerful. I know, as I spent 3-4 years doing just that. It is a hard job which costs 10s-100s of thousands of pounds to do. Nobody I know enjoys killing grey squirrels, but it must be done to save the reds. Without grey squirrel removal, the red squirrels of Anglesey would have been extinct in 2000, and the only reintroduction of reds currently ongoing in the UK would never have started. As it is, the reds were saved from the brink of extinction (less than 40 individuals), and they have now been seen in areas away from their remnant population. The reintroduction is proceeding well, with over 20 free-ranging red squirrels now living and breeding where over 500 greys were removed (by me).
The red squirrel may be numerous at the moment in northern Europe, but this is likely to change rapidly if the grey squirrels introduced to Italy get through the Alps into the rest of Europe. That is why there are moves to stop the greys before they have a chance to colonise the whole of mainland Europe, wiping out the native species.
I suggest you research your information a little more thoroughly if you want to appear credible. Unless you have been involved with red squirrel conservation work, you can have little idea of the vulnerability of our native squirrel, and the resilience and persistence of the alien grey squirrel. It comes down to one basic choice: we can have either the red or grey squirrel, not both. Personally, I choose the native red which has been here nearly 10,000 years, over the grey which was introduced just over 100 years ago.
Martin Bailey.
Squirrel murderer and ethnic cleanser.
(Also conservationist and anti-cruelty lobbyist)
|
Kath
Dec 12th, 2006 - 5:10 AM |
What about the trees?
Dear Angus
Having been an animal rights campaigner for many years I do vaguely understand where you are coming from.
However I am curious to hear your views on the damage grey squirrels do to trees, not just broadleaves but increasingly conifers as well.
In the garden where I used to live, trees grow to about 1 metre and then grey squirrels rip the lead shoot out. The tree doesn't die straight away but eventually the damage is so serious the tree gives up.
Finally I'm a vegetarian but if I kill a squirrel I eat it. Marinated in red wine / mustard / soy sauce, it tastes rather like rabbit.
Your website is using emotive nonsense. Humans are stupid enough without being fed balderdash and piffle.
Best Regards
Kath
|
First
Prev
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com