Llangynog

Hi Al,

It's an interesting issue and has made me think and find out more, so that's good. What's not so good is misunderstanding in some of the posts. I guess that's a drawback with this form of debate, so let's both try to consider that what we read might not be what was intended. I would also like to apologise if you found my tone offensive in my post - that's a flaw I have to admit to sometimes. I'm sorry you felt deliberately misconstrued as well, it wasn't my intention. Equally however, your own message below is not written in an entirely pleasant manner, so please consider this if you wish to get a reply. I certainly do mind getting unpleasant messages and offensive post replies.

I do accept that greys are a significant threat to the recovery of the reds, and that the virus outbreaks could well be making the problem even worse. I can accept controlling greys in order to help reds. I would even go so far as to accept that greys could be disaster and catastrophe for red squirrels in some sense. I am not so accepting of the idea that they are a "disaster for other native species".

I think we more or less agree about predation of small birds, and the damage to their habitat by greys, and I'm quite happy to accept your point that their predation is 10 times worse than reds. Perhaps small is not the right term for the predation, maybe "not critical to their overall numbers" would be better. From your message below it seems we agree it's probably not the prime cause of the sad demise of some of these species, whatever the level of predation. Of course I agree the presence of greys doesn't help birds that are in decline for other reasons. Perhaps that does constitute disaster in some sense, to some people, but I feel that's stretching things. To me "greys are a disaster for native species" strongly suggests that they were the main cause of that decline, rather than one of several factors. I don't expect those declines would have occurred if grey squirrels were the only problem. That is not supported by the facts, not least, the timing of grey squirrel introduction/population increase and the decline of these bird species, or the continued presence of healthy populations of both these birds species and squirrels in many locations, or the declines that have occured in places where greys are absent. Let's hope those declines can be reversed in any case.

I was really responding to Paul's post which certainly implied that greys were responsible for the disasterous declines of other species ie not red squirrels. Outside of effects on small woodland birds and red squirrels, I'm not sure which other British native species he might be referring to?

There was a misunderstanding about Gos and Pine Marten. I was not suggesting they keep Grey Squirrel numbers down much - I agree that's laughable. I was suggesting that removing greys by culling might have a bad impact on the survival of these two predator species in England. I'm sure you agree it'd be a great shame to lose Pine Marten in England and Wales in order to save reds, so we'd need to be very sure that they wouldn't be majorly affected if there was a removal. Perhaps ultimately grey removal would be the right thing to do anyway, but we have to be aware of unintended side-effects of righting a past wrong.

As for North American woodland birds, I could well be wrong about their evolutionary adaptations to grey squirrels. I am genuinely curious about that and I was perhaps wrong to venture my opinion. I'm sure it's complex issue because most evolutionary adaptations also have consquent penalties which keep them in check and one factor like squirrel predation cannot be taken in isolation. Eg defending the nest takes energy and might get the adults killed. My only point is that it's not obvious that these adaptations exist.

There are certainly representatives of nearly all the European passerine families in North America though that makes little difference because even very similar species like Willow and Marsh Tit have very different nesting strategies. So ignore that point. I have spent some time in New England woodland, and it's easy to get carried away with the similarities with British wildlife. I tend to forget that the ecology is very different.

I am not at all trying to say that we shouldn't try to persuade people of the negative impacts of greys, and the possible needs to cull them. Just IMO, it is risky to over-emphasize these impacts to try to sway those who oppose culls.

I find control of invasive species a very interesting topic and happy to debate it, but please avoid offensive personal attacks like "for your own ends" and "blinded by your own science" in posts and messages, calling me foolish, ignorant etc. It does your arguments no credit and is most likely to get them ignored and you banned.

welcome to wab