Your thoughts on this

[FUDGEY]

Cull pine martens, says wildlife expert - Times Online

[aeshna5]

I have to say it's not something I would endorse as the Pine Marten isn't exactly numerous itself. Of course I don't want to see the Capercaillie become extinct here, but it does appear to be a real uphill struggle for it to survive here with so many elements against it from human disturbance, predation, weather + deer fences (I know this last factor is being reduced).

[UB4 gardener]

surely there must be other underlying causes for this bird to be on the verge of extinction again. it is a swedish reintroduction after all.
"A change in legislation would enable ministers to grant special licences allowing for protected species to be controlled to preserve stocks of other threatened animals. " any guesses on what other protected species?

"Alex Hogg, chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers' Association, said: “Pine martens pose a serious threat and it seems to make sense to have controlled culling of predators in zones where capercaillies are trying to make a comeback.” guns and traps or posioned peanut butter and jam sarnies at the ready lads though he does say predators not just martins.

how about doing a study on why pine martins are resorting to eating capercaillie eggs. has their normal food suply dried up? have they been forced in to the birds territory due to habitat loss. i did a google satellite view and wonder how much the landscape has changed since the 70's.

rant over.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by UB4 gardener

how about doing a study on why pine martins are resorting to eating capercaillie eggs. has their normal food suply dried up? have they been forced in to the birds territory due to habitat loss. i did a google satellite view and wonder how much the landscape has changed since the 70's.

rant over.

It's not a case of that. Pine Martens are habitual egg-eaters, so they just hunt and eat nests as a matter of course. When the prey has a big population then it doesn't matter, as the losses are effectively 'random'. But when the population is small then these random events can have a bigger magnitude. There is an anomaly whereby you can cull Foxes and Stoats to protect rare nests but not other habitual nest predators. It all depends on which one you decide is more important.

You'd have to weigh up this querstion on the basis of which one is more important in a European and global situation - it's not a British question. How important is the UK caper' population in the wider context, and is it worth preserving? How big is the Pine Marten population in the same context and is that worth preserving more? And are either unique forms/races?

If we look at Capercaillie, the population is a minute fraction of the European/global one (which is enormous), they're not a unique form, and their conservation status is insecure (i.e. they might be on the way out no matter what we do).

I don't know what the European population of the Pine Marten is, but the animals in Scotland at least are native (though not genetically distinct?). If the % of European Pine Martens in Scotland is higher than the % of European Capercaillie, then I think there is a case for letting the Capercaillie go to the wall.

[FUDGEY]

Very good post RKB, you always make me think deeper into things. I wonder if it would be possible to introduce Capers into Southern Scotland or Northern England where there are very low numbers of Martins. If it did get to a stage where they decided to cull Martins would it not be better to live trap them and relocate them to areas with no Capers?

[NicolaB]

Very good post RKB, you always make me think deeper into things. I wonder if it would be possible to introduce Capers into Southern Scotland or Northern England where there are very low numbers of Martins. If it did get to a stage where they decided to cull Martins would it not be better to live trap them and relocate them to areas with no Capers?

It sounds like that's the best course of action to me. I strongly suspect there is suitable Caper habitat in lots of areas of Scotland, Northern England and possible North Wales too. I'd also sooner see the Martens livetrapped than culled as well, after all they are a nationally scare native species.

[RKB]

Capercaillie habitat is mature native pine forests, and these don't exist outside of Scotland. As pine trees are not native to England, then neither is the Capercaillie. And you'd just be moving the problem - all the issues that are causing problems in Scotland are still there in England (Pine Martens aren't the reason why they're declining, they're just not helping).

Moving Pine Martens about would also be very expensive. It would effectively be a reintroduction, which are hugely expensive in terms of money and labour. That means your costs for 'saving' the Capercaillie would shoot through the roof, while the birds themselves would probably still decline.

There are at least 5 million Capercaillies across their Eurasian range. Spending a fortune trying to save 1,000 birds in Scotland, that are of Swedish origin, while killing lots of other stuff, is a bit questionable. It's a bit like the Osprey conservation/reintroduction - we're spending a fortune on one of the most widespread and common raptors in the World, while spending nothing on the unique British race of Willow Tit, which exists nowhere else in the World, has declined by 85% and is down to less than 5 thousand pairs.

[Finndog]

It will be interesting to see the actual survey data that the RSPB actually present as a previous study on predation and caper numbers (done by the game conservancy trust in 2004) suggested that:

Our data on predator abundance and breeding
success, however, show that not all predators are equally
important to capercaillie. Thus, although pine martens
certainly take capercaillie eggs and chicks, the index of
pine marten abundance was unrelated to capercaillie
breeding success (Table 5). Consistent with our observations,
Smedshaug et al. (1999) found that, during a
period when sarcoptic mange reduced fox numbers
in Norway, pine martens and small game, including
capercaillie, black grouse, willow grouse Lagopus
lagopus and mountain hares Lepus timidus, all increased
in abundance. Foxes kill martens and may also compete
with them for food (Smedshaug et al. 1999). It seems
likely that foxes have a bigger effect on capercaillie than
pine martens, such that the killing of foxes benefits
both capercaillie and martens.

From:

Journal of Applied Ecology 2004 41, 59–71

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/caperbreedingsuccess.pdf/$FILE/caperbreedingsuccess.pdf

I think overall predation pressure directly relates to decreasing caper numbers but wether or not pine martins are solely responsible remains to be seen. I await the RSPB's findings with interest.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Finndog

I think overall predation pressure directly relates to decreasing caper numbers but wether or not pine martins are solely responsible remains to be seen. I await the RSPB's findings with interest.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they are (no one in their right mind, anyway). The cynic may wonder if this is somethign to do with the recent trend in Scotland of proposing the removal of protection from some predators. In 2009 the Scottish administration made it easier to control Buzzards and Ravens (effectively making it simpler to be allowed to do so)? There seems to be an obvious concerted effort throughout Britain, but especially in Scotland, to 'normalise' the control of currently-protected predators. It's easy to see the argument: once you can cull Buzzards or Pine Martens, why not Hen Harriers or Peregrines?

Once you break the taboo, then there's no reason not consider anything 'off limits'. And with Scotland's potential parlous economic situation and the SNP's desire for independence, the game industry would be a significant part of the national income. Maybe there is pressure from the SNP for SNH to look favourably on issues that would help the game industry?

[thebeard]

i agree with rkb's suggestions, the amount of money being spent on a bird that has already been reintroduced will only increase as other factors for their decline continue to reduce their numbers. Work done on a wider scale, although more difficult to control (ie habitat loss) will perhaps benefit them, as well as maintaining populations of other wildlife such as pine martens and other pine forest specialists. I think to spend more resources on culling a population of native mammals is the wrong way of doing things and contradicts work done to save other native species by culling invasive ones, and will only cause controversy and may put certain organisations into a bad light, a lot of people already look down on some of the methods used by bodies like the RSPB.

i think the fact that the scottish population is not strictly native due to their reintroduction, as well as it only representing less than 1% of the global population means that although it would be a terrible shame to lose them, in the bigger picture, there would be better things to concentrate on. However this is a difficult argument to put forward, especially as the UK is on the edge of the range of a lot of species which are numerous elsewhere and many are getting similar treatment (ie Cirl Bunting). Single-species conservation programmes are, in my experience, possibly not the most economically viable projects, however they do produce visible results a lot of the time thus displaying the success of conservation work, and sometimes they can benefit other species and habitats which share the same areas. its difficult to put a case for and against!