Bloody squirell

[notenoughwrists]

There is a marked difference between having to tweak the environment to those that like going out and killing things just for the sake of it. Like you I've lived in rural location most of my life and quite used to “country ways” My father used to go rabbiting with ferrets, he shot, my brothers all shot and my uncle would literally shoot anything that moved. I have never derived any pleasure from killing something for killings sake, like the guys that go out in camo gear, perched on top of their open top Land Rover with a huge lights knocking off rabbits in the small hours. Ohhhh yes I'm sure you're having such a huge impact on the number and doing the local land owner such a service…..Just admit you like going out and killing shit.
Ive never quite understood why we get to choose what lives and dies simply because something isn't either native or has become more prolific than another species.

Although the nihilist in me does see the argument for letting it all just sort itself out - species come and go, things invade and thrive and become native in due course. We shouldn’t be the intelligent design aspect forced upon nature - but when we introduce something for our own amusement (Greys were brought over in typical Victorian style to adorn the grounds of stately homes as decoration) then we are perhaps morally obliged to then manage it when they start to become detrimental.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Griswold]

Are red squirrels somehow resistant or are they also riddled with fleas and viruses?

Quite the opposite. Grey Squirrels are resistant to Squirrel Pox which they pass on to Reds which aren't. This is one of the principal reasons for the decline in Red Squirrel populations. It's a similar issue with our native Crayfish and the 'introduced by man' American Signal Crayfish. Then, of course, there's Japanese Knotweed!

[K-Z1R]

Although the nihilist in me does see the argument for letting it all just sort itself out - species come and go, things invade and thrive and become native in due course. We shouldn’t be the intelligent design aspect forced upon nature - but when we introduce something for our own amusement (Greys were brought over in typical Victorian style to adorn the grounds of stately homes as decoration) then we are perhaps morally obliged to then manage it when they start to become detrimental.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Exactly and I manage them with head shots.

[M4tt]

Seems the Wildlife Trust disagrees with you....

https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/savin.../red-squirrels

Having been here for over 10,000 years would, I suspect, give them 'native' credentials in most peoples eyes.


I have been fortunate to have had an abundance of Reds visiting our garden, of ten six or eight at a time for many years when I lived in Formby. I also, prior to our moving, witnessed the rapid decline in such visits - all due to Squirrel Pox as carried by Greys. People are employed, quite correctly and legally, to kill any Greys that are encountered there and residents are asked to report any sightings of them so as to help protect the remaining Reds in that area.

You can play the semantics game if you like, it won't help the Red Squirrel population one bit - killing Greys will.

It's not a semantic game, it's a historical and genetic fact.

There are a profusion of scientific papers on the subject, for example:

file:///C:/Users/End%20User/Downloads/Patterns_of_genetic_diversity_in_the_red_squirrel_ .pdf

Who are clear that:

We found that the majority of extant populations of BritishS. vulgarisare of continental ancestry, many with a very recent (last 40 years) Scandinavian ancestry.

and evidence that claim quite thoroughly. There are plenty of others papers that arrive at similar conclusions.

The fact is that the native red squirrel population was crushed by two non native species, one of which happened to be red.

That this is both well known and well attested in the scientific literature makes the attempts to stop something that has already happened look a bit odd. There are almost certainly sciurus vulgaris leucourus in zoos and elsewhere and so perhaps if everyone cares that much about holding back evolution, then they could start a breeding program for the British Squirrel and re-release them.

[beechcustom]

Buy more food.

Thankfully this is the GD so my comments about the scum that shoot them will have to be moderate.

Absolutely this.

[K-Z1R]

Some useful information about methods of controlling these vermin can be found below.

https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/

[earlofsodbury]

It's not a semantic game, it's a historical and genetic fact. ...

It's also a red herring. In the ecologically relevant context of trophic niches, the 'racial purity' of red squirrels is irrelevant.

Greys overlap with and outcompete reds of any subspecies in most woodland settings (albeit less so in certain conifer stands in some areas), but they also have ecological effects on other species that are markedly different, being bigger, bolder, more intelligent, more aggressive, less arboreal, and having very different behavioural patterns. Greys are more omnivorous, and in particular take significantly more prey than reds for whom it's seemingly a food of last resort, so greys' effect on nesting birds, for example, is significantly greater.

Greys are also much better at cache recovery than reds, so contribute less to ecological regeneration, and they will cache the seeds of non-native trees like horse chestnut, which reds usually avoid, aiding the proliferation of xenospecies.

There's plenty of documented evidence demonstrating that greys are harmful invasives needing control, but I know of nothing beyond anthropomorphic sentimentality that argues against it.

[notenoughwrists]

It's also a red herring. In the ecologically relevant context of trophic niches, the 'racial purity' of red squirrels is irrelevant.

Greys overlap with and outcompete reds of any subspecies in most woodland settings (albeit less so in certain conifer stands in some areas), but they also have ecological effects on other species that are markedly different, being bigger, bolder, more intelligent, more aggressive, less arboreal, and having very different behavioural patterns. Greys are more omnivorous, and in particular take significantly more prey than reds for whom it's seemingly a food of last resort, so greys' effect on nesting birds, for example, is significantly greater.

Greys are also much better at cache recovery than reds, so contribute less to ecological regeneration, and they will cache the seeds of non-native trees like horse chestnut, which reds usually avoid, aiding the proliferation of xenospecies.

There's plenty of documented evidence demonstrating that greys are harmful invasives needing control, but I know of nothing beyond anthropomorphic sentimentality that argues against it.

Nice.
The Earl is always eloquent and informative.

I am also amazed at the depth this thread has gone to, the polarisation, the knowledge and the emotion.

And this is a watch forum!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Kingstepper]

If greys replace reds, does it really matter? We've helped nature along. Same if greys affect the habitat, might suit something else better.

Reds are preferred because they're more 'cute' to us humans. Red squirrels don't care if they become extinct, it's all about us.

[sweets]

If greys replace reds, does it really matter? We've helped nature along. Same if greys affect the habitat, might suit something else better.

Reds are preferred because they're miore 'cute' to us humans. Red squirrels don't care if they become extinct, it's all about us.

Yes it does, it will eventually have foreseeable and unforeseen effects. One if the more obvious ones will be the demise (or massive decline) of certain tree species. From our own local observations, Field Maples are likely to be the first to go, as they are preferentially bark stripped to a ruinous degree. We have lost at least 3 in one relatively small area of woodland, meaning there are now no Maples below fully mature size, no succession whatsoever.
The grey will substantially alter woodland balance through many differences in their abilities and habits, compared to the red which co evolved with, and part of, our current European woodland flora and fauna.
Any difference between European and aboriginal reds here is almost nil, the submergence of land bridge that isolated the uk is a rekatively recent happening.

Given that, in my lifetime, we have relegated the mighty Elm to a shrub, and are now witnessing the likely 60-80% loss of ash trees through dieback, I much prefer to give as many of our native tree species the best chances I can.

[notenoughwrists]

Yes it does, it will eventually have foreseeable and unforeseen effects. One if the more obvious ones will be the demise (or massive decline) of certain tree species. From our own local observations, Field Maples are likely to be the first to go, as they are preferentially bark stripped to a ruinous degree. We have lost at least 3 in one relatively small area of woodland, meaning there are now no Maples below fully mature size, no succession whatsoever.
The grey will substantially alter woodland balance through many differences in their abilities and habits, compared to the red which co evolved with, and part of, our current European woodland flora and fauna.
Any difference between European and aboriginal reds here is almost nil, the submergence of land bridge that isolated the uk is a rekatively recent happening.

Given that, in my lifetime, we have relegated the mighty Elm to a shrub, and are now witnessing the likely 60-80% loss of ash trees through dieback, I much prefer to give as many of our native tree species the best chances I can.

This. Quote:

The grey will substantially alter woodland balance through many differences in their abilities and habits, compared to the red which co evolved with, and part of, our current European woodland flora and fauna.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Kairos]

It's not a semantic game, it's a historical and genetic fact.

There are a profusion of scientific papers on the subject, for example:

file:///C:/Users/End%20User/Downloads/Patterns_of_genetic_diversity_in_the_red_squirrel_ .pdf

Who are clear that:



and evidence that claim quite thoroughly. There are plenty of others papers that arrive at similar conclusions.

The fact is that the native red squirrel population was crushed by two non native species, one of which happened to be red.

That this is both well known and well attested in the scientific literature makes the attempts to stop something that has already happened look a bit odd. There are almost certainly sciurus vulgaris leucourus in zoos and elsewhere and so perhaps if everyone cares that much about holding back evolution, then they could start a breeding program for the British Squirrel and re-release them.

Follow the money.... who funded this research?

Reds were translocated from Brownsea island in the 70s to augment very depleted populations in some of the red squirrel areas. The advancing greys outcompeted this augmentation program, which was then backed up by imports from Sweden in an attempt to stem the decline.

[M4tt]

It's also a red herring. In the ecologically relevant context of trophic niches, the 'racial purity' of red squirrels is irrelevant.

Greys overlap with and outcompete reds of any subspecies in most woodland settings (albeit less so in certain conifer stands in some areas), but they also have ecological effects on other species that are markedly different, being bigger, bolder, more intelligent, more aggressive, less arboreal, and having very different behavioural patterns. Greys are more omnivorous, and in particular take significantly more prey than reds for whom it's seemingly a food of last resort, so greys' effect on nesting birds, for example, is significantly greater.

Greys are also much better at cache recovery than reds, so contribute less to ecological regeneration, and they will cache the seeds of non-native trees like horse chestnut, which reds usually avoid, aiding the proliferation of xenospecies.

There's plenty of documented evidence demonstrating that greys are harmful invasives needing control, but I know of nothing beyond anthropomorphic sentimentality that argues against it.

That’s a good set of arguments. I agree, the racial purity of red squirrels is irrelevant, unless of course one is countering the claim that an indigenous sub species is being protected from an invader, when in fact both are imports, but one is a better cuckoo.

So now we have dealt with that red herring and the two squirrels are on a level playing field, I can see the strength of your ‘ecological’ argument. You make a fine case for controlling grey squirrels, not because they are not indigenous, but because they have a greater impact for all the reasons you give. Of course, I don’t have to be John Grey to point out that, applied consistently, as any argument should be, you are also arguing for the culling of any animal that fulfils the sort of criteria you give. That’s quite a long list and I rather suspect we are on it. So, without special pleading, why just grey squirrels? Especially as, historically, the decline of red squirrels began back in the 1800s because they were hunted to protect trees. If the principle is reducing ecological impact, then where do we stop?

I was less impressed by the anthropomorphism argument. Apart from being wrong, which I don’t mind, it does rather leave you wide open to me pointing out that we live in a universe devoid of teleos, that evolution is a process that is far subtler than we can grasp and entirely designer free. Where exactly do any of us get the right to play God and decide which animal is fit and which not? Sure, that’s also an evolutionary process, but playing God has a pretty poor track record. If you fully understand the long term effects of playing God in a chaotic environment, rather than picking half a dozen criteria that fit your argument and appear positive in the short term, then carry on. Personally, I find that it’s a damned sight more interesting to make friends with creatures than shoot them and so I’ll stick to paper targets and a tight grouping.

[M4tt]

Follow the money.... who funded this research?

Reds were translocated from Brownsea island in the 70s to augment very depleted populations in some of the red squirrel areas. The advancing greys outcompeted this augmentation program, which was then backed up by imports from Sweden in an attempt to stem the decline.

But that augmentation has been going on since the late 1800s, when red numbers dropped rapidly when they were hunted for simillar ‘ecological’ reasons as greys are now. Plus ca change.

As for the research, rather than no argument and and a quick tu quoque, why not tell me who and why that undermines what looks like solid research that fits what you just stated. And it was representative, not exclusive. There’s plenty more wher that came from.

[M4tt]

This. Quote:

The grey will substantially alter woodland balance through many differences in their abilities and habits, compared to the red which co evolved with, and part of, our current European woodland flora and fauna.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You are aware that most of the forests in the UK were decimated for shipbuilding, farming and the such like. Not by Squirrels.

[sprite1275]

You are aware that most of the forests in the UK were decimated for shipbuilding, farming and the such like. Not by Squirrels.

Are you sure? I don't trust them.

https://youtu.be/eId6pSt-a1c

[JasonM]

As usual the topic has gone off on a tangent, unless the OP is living in a red squirrel area that is being threatened by the Grey squirrel then most of these points are not really relevant, the Gray squirrels have just done what any species is designed to do, live, reproduce and dominate their environment which it has done very well. Protect the red ones as much as you like, but saying that shooting a Grey squirrel is the right thing to do for eating too much bird food to try to survive the winter is a bit nuts if you ask me.
What next, shoot the European migrant Starlings that come here over winter and gobble up the food we put out for our native ones? ( Nobody tell the Home Office please )

[notenoughwrists]

You are aware that most of the forests in the UK were decimated for shipbuilding, farming and the such like. Not by Squirrels.

And by me when I worked in forestry. Stihl crazy after all these years.

Yes, I know that We do far more damage and I have a Cull List prepared, but takes a touch more planning and less public discussion than the sqwrl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[notenoughwrists]

As usual the topic has gone off on a tangent, unless the OP is living in a red squirrel area that is being threatened by the Grey squirrel then most of these points are not really relevant, the Gray squirrels have just done what any species is designed to do, live, reproduce and dominate their environment which it has done very well. Protect the red ones as much as you like, but saying that shooting a Grey squirrel is the right thing to do for eating too much bird food to try to survive the winter is a bit nuts if you ask me.
What next, shoot the European migrant Starlings that come here over winter and gobble up the food we put out for our native ones? ( Nobody tell the Home Office please )

Actually it doesn’t eat it. It just takes the suet away and buries it. Then the rats come.

What next?
Well, I had not planned on this escalating into a migrant safari, but now you mention it i might start bagging some Canada geese - coming over ere and eating all our pond weed and white bread. Oooh, and I cannot wait until the swallows return next summer for some testing target practice.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JasonM]

Actually it doesn’t eat it. It just takes the suet away and buries it. Then the rats come.

What next?
Well, I had not planned on this escalating into a migrant safari, but now you mention it i might start bagging some Canada geese - coming over ere and eating all our pond weed and white bread. Oooh, and I cannot wait until the swallows return next summer for some testing target practice.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Ah come off it, Canada is part of the Commonwealth so their Geese are OK, now the Swallow, they can carry a 1lb coconut so don't put those out.

[verv]

So, you're happy that a non-native, invasive, Squirrels should be allowed to wipe out our native Red Squirrel population? Seriously? Thankfully, people in the few areas where Reds still survive are better informed than you appear to be on the subject, and take appropriate measures to protect them!

https://www.lancswt.org.uk/RedSquirrelFAQ

Nothing to do with being "informed" and everything to do with judging people who take guns to animals and enjoy it.
Whether it's a lion an elephant or a squirrel, my view on the human ability to seek out and enjoy ending a life is as follows: Scum.

[M4tt]

Even my dog knows better!

[earlofsodbury]

... I don’t have to be John Grey to point out that, applied consistently, as any argument should be, you are also arguing for the culling of any animal that fulfils the sort of criteria you give.

Setting-aside the fact that I wasn't in order to try to stay-on-topic, I'm starting to catch the scent of logical fallacy creeping-in...

That’s quite a long list and I rather suspect we are on it.

Yep, I was right!

Humans - rightly viewed as animals - arrived in Britain entirely under their own steam (no pyramidal-spaceships involved, I'm reasonably sure) several times over, the earliest at least a million years ago. Only major ice-ages temporarily eliminated them from areas of permanent ice cover. We are very much a native species - for better or worse...

Now, were you to argue that present-day humanity should be culled for ecological (and other) reasons, you'd have my wholehearted agreement, if perhaps not my co-operation...

I was less impressed by the anthropomorphism argument. Apart from being wrong, which I don’t mind, it does rather leave you wide open to me pointing out that we live in a universe devoid of teleos, that evolution is a process that is far subtler than we can grasp and entirely designer free. Where exactly do any of us get the right to play God and decide which animal is fit and which not?

And again!

Humans have introduced ecologically harmful species worldwide (and infuriatingly, continue to), and only humans can extirpate them in an attempt to put-right our mistakes. There are many arguments for this, but the most important is to preserve ecological diversity, and thus the resilience of ecosystems. Without resilient ecosystems, we run the risk of catastrophic losses as humans continue to heap diverse pressures upon them. This is why (e.g.) we are gradually re-introducing species driven to extinction in the UK hundreds of years ago.

It's an important characteristic of xenospecies that they are often in a position to outcompete their near-equivalents in any given ecosystem. In the case of predators or parasites, potential prey or hosts are often unable to properly recognise them as a threat, while in the case of fungi and microbes of various kinds, organisms may have no immunity to infection. The result is often extinction, sometimes of many species in a given area.

Sentimentality cannot contrive a case against this, no matter how convolutedly it's argued. Freedom-of-choice, is quite another matter, and of course you and your tree-rats may do as you please! ;-)

[notenoughwrists]

Nothing to do with being "informed" and everything to do with judging people who take guns to animals and enjoy it.
Whether it's a lion an elephant or a squirrel, my view on the human ability to seek out and enjoy ending a life is as follows: Scum.

Not wrong, and I totally agree with you.

But, and apologies if I am wrong, it reads like you are inferring that people here are enjoying the shooting aspect.
I don’t think that is at all the case. No post has said as much, so far as I can see, and I have in fact said despite many time in my life having to shoot things, I have never enjoyed killing a thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Franky Four Fingers]

Not wrong, and I totally agree with you.

But, and apologies if I am wrong, it reads like you are inferring that people here are enjoying the shooting aspect.
I don’t think that is at all the case. No post has said as much, so far as I can see, and I have in fact said despite many time in my life having to shoot things, I have never enjoyed killing a thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There is at least 3 posts by the same person who quite clearly likes shooting things


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M4tt]

Setting-aside the fact that I wasn't in order to try to stay-on-topic, I'm starting to catch the scent of logical fallacy creeping-in...

Not bothering to stay on topic, a logical fallacy would imply that my reasoning was faulty. Your evidence for my reasoning being faulty is the claim that my premises are false.

Yep, I was right!

Excellent, in that case you will be able to tell me what logical fallacy I have committed, rather than simply, as you claim, operating from false premises.

Humans - rightly viewed as animals - arrived in Britain entirely under their own steam (no pyramidal-spaceships involved, I'm reasonably sure) several times over, the earliest at least a million years ago. Only major ice-ages temporarily eliminated them from areas of permanent ice cover. We are very much a native species - for better or worse...

Now, were you to argue that present-day humanity should be culled for ecological (and other) reasons, you'd have my wholehearted agreement, if perhaps not my co-operation...



And again!

Humans have introduced ecologically harmful species worldwide (and infuriatingly, continue to), and only humans can extirpate them in an attempt to put-right our mistakes. There are many arguments for this, but the most important is to preserve ecological diversity, and thus the resilience of ecosystems. Without resilient ecosystems, we run the risk of catastrophic losses as humans continue to heap diverse pressures upon them. This is why (e.g.) we are gradually re-introducing species driven to extinction in the UK hundreds of years ago.

It's an important characteristic of xenospecies that they are often in a position to outcompete their near-equivalents in any given ecosystem. In the case of predators or parasites, potential prey or hosts are often unable to properly recognise them as a threat, while in the case of fungi and microbes of various kinds, organisms may have no immunity to infection. The result is often extinction, sometimes of many species in a given area.

Sentimentality cannot contrive a case against this, no matter how convolutedly it's argued. Freedom-of-choice, is quite another matter, and of course you and your tree-rats may do as you please!

This would be a solid counter argument, except of course, the first job I did was this:

That’s a good set of arguments. I agree, the racial purity of red squirrels is irrelevant, unless of course one is countering the claim that an indigenous sub species is being protected from an invader, when in fact both are imports, but one is a better cuckoo.

So now we have dealt with that red herring and the two squirrels are on a level playing field, I can see the strength of your ‘ecological’ argument.

From this point onwards I was dealing purely with the ecological argument, not the invasive species argument, which I agreed was a red herring.

So to counter my argument, you reintroduced the invasive species argument, which I explicitly wasn't making. However, I'm fascinated to hear about the homo sapiens in England a million years ago. I'm not personally a believer in the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis, but homo sapiens in England a million years ago? Please tell me more.

Incidentally, I don't think I've ever mentioned it here, but my interest in the spread and cognitive development of archaic hominids is intense enough that I learned to knap flints as there is an interesting case made that knapping flints is a potential evolutionary path to internalising the sorts of structures that can support a grammar.



Who needs an air rifle?

As for the rest of the argument, yes, I broadly agree and concede the point. It just doesn't really work for squirrels. Rabbits, cats and cane toads in Australia, for example, sure, but the difference between recent reds and greys is not that great and the modern reds have a massive reserve throughout europe - re introduce the pine marten sure, but folks with guns shooting things? I don't think so.

[M4tt]

There is at least 3 posts by the same person who quite clearly likes shooting things


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love shooting things, just not living things. I started as an Air Cadet and never really stopped.

[notenoughwrists]

There is at least 3 posts by the same person who quite clearly likes shooting things


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok. Discounting them, assuming they mean alive things, then they are ghoulish fuckwits if they enjoy the actual death aspect


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[theevaultkeeper]

I have one of these and have culled 17 squirrels. And yes i was stupid enough to put my finger in there too…..

could try one of these:

https://goodnaturetraps.co.uk/shop/a18-grey-squirrel-trap/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA-oqdBhDfARIsAO0TrGG3LYjZBI0UdMCQBzYOQUr-U1fcA--KeKuHeXnv_spLBRNNpT-HQqkaAow0EALw_wcB

[theevaultkeeper]

Oh the Irony in your name isnt wasted on me as i indeed caught my finger in a squirrel trap !!!!!!

What’s wrong with us humans that we think we have the right to shoot and cull other species.

[K-Z1R]

Shot a visiting tree rat over Christmas. Didn't celebrate it's demise in any way and left it in the open for the buzzards that hover overhead. A few hours later it was gone. Marvellous.

[Kingstepper]

Shot a visiting tree rat over Christmas. Didn't celebrate it's demise in any way and left it in the open for the buzzards that hover overhead. A few hours later it was gone. Marvellous.

Daft, why not just call them squirrels?

[Franky Four Fingers]

Daft, why not just call them squirrels?

Calling something which it isn't kind of justifies it somewhat. Id imagine its the same when they go big game hunting by giving them awful elephants names such as flappy eared nose rat helps them to pull the trigger a bit harder.