Hi Rob,
Excellent explanation, but I suspect that you found that in order to ensure you are not misunderstood and explain things accurately it takes a great deal of time and effort, so well done and thanks for that.
My problem is that I get annoyed with people who argue from a sentimental standpoint only," I don't like mink so you can kill them but I do like grey squirrels so leave them alone, and as for signal crayfish they're not cute and fluffy so do what you like!" After reading a few posts of that nature I am already wound up and want to have ago at anyone who opposes grey culling for whatever reason.
As a generalisation It appears to me that, in the main, the extremist grey squirrel lovers have not researched the subject anywhere nears as much as the pro-cullers have and many of them, as I say, are what are called the fluffy-bunny lovers, so the subject is going to be provocative from the start.
My own opinion is that even exhaustive research may not provide the necessary proof that will sway those against eradication on moral grounds, and it takes so much time when there is so little left that I advocate taking absolutely no chances by removing them all and parapox carriers with them. I believe that unless we do that we will get more and more Formby Point scenarios until it is too late. However difficult and expensive it is I think every county should do a Northumberland and Anglesey, where, interestingly, the initial reservations from the public appear to be fading.
If I am still around in another 20 years time and the red squirrels' range has shrunk still further then I will be standing on my soap-box saying in a frail voice "See, I was right, but nobody ever listened to me!!)
Anyway, I think we both appreciate the other's viewpoint, so thanks again for going to all that trouble and I must admit that I have learned something.
Cheers
Al.

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.

Hi Rob. Hope you don't mind a personal message but I am getting fed up of being deliberately misconstrued for your own ends. Just because you work in conservation please do not think that you can blind people with science. I am aware of the RSPB and BTOs conclusions on woodland bird predation, I am a member of both. I did not, as you say, claim that greys were a huge factor (I forget my exact wording but it is immaterial) I did claim that they are a factor and that that factor is at least 10 times greater than the reds. Can you disprove that? Is that not a reasonable assumption? If the factor is less than 10 it is relatively immaterial anyway unless you can prove that reds do more harm than greys. If you cannot then my basic premise remains correct.
Do not be blinded by your own science and your desire to demonstrate it. Reds being lighter and smaller can potentially access more nests, yes I agree and more small birds can successfully defend their nests against them for that same reason, I have witnessed that personally, and so another variable is thrown into the equation.
Of course all accessible nests will be predated by either species, but only if there are squirrels present and as you have pointed out, thus falling into your own trap, many areas of the country will not support reds, but they will support greys. So predation will reduce considerably. Are you also trying to say that tree damage, presumably part of the habitat degradation that is a significant factor in predation, would not be less with reds?
Science is invaluable but please do not try and use it to suit your own ends .
Al.