Rob_D

Hi Rob, as a member of the HBB group you might be interested in subscribing to this link: http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...tml#post463033
This will enable everyone to keep up to date with meets and important news.
(To subscribe follow the instructions in the link "Subscribe to this Thread" in "Thread Tools")

Hi Rob
Feel free to join us at Wildlife and Environment Forums - Herts, Beds And Bucks WABbers

OK Al. I understand your annoyance with sentimentality.

Possibly a number of psychologists or marketing guys would do a much better job of convincing people to accept widespread culling than ecologists, but they cost big bucks to employ.

I place my hope for defeat of invasive species in some future control breakthroughs - a virus spread contraceptive for greys for example? I know nothing about the difficulties of these developments, but I feel sure there'd be more progress if funding were increased. Now they're spread in North Italy, and threatening to get into France perhaps the EU might add some of their vast research funds to this - sometimes that does produce results. Maybe I am dreaming in these things, but I like to retain some positive ideas of success in conservation.

It's not that I'm opposed to widespread culling, just that I'm not sure it's likely to succeed, and money and attention gets diverted from other things. BBC Wildlife Magazine. I don't like Prof Harris's approach of accepting defeat on the mainland BTW, but it's worth considering his opinion of the difficulties given his background. Expressing skepticism of the effectiveness of a cull is used by the "sentimental brigade" as support for their "moral" arguement, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to ask the question if it's really the best thing to do.

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 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.