Call for cull of squirrels - Woodland Trust, RSPB views sought!

It is believed after further investigation that the conservation
groups, woodland trust and RSPB supported the killing of the
squirrels and advised how it should be done for pest control.

Call for cull of squirrels 'barbaric': Council wants mass slaughter
to protect trees
March 23, 2001 9:23: CALLS for a mass killing of grey squirrels have
been met with threats of public protest by animal rights activists
who have branded the idea barbaric.

The animals are facing a possible death sentence after Amersham Town
Council called for action to combat increasing damage to trees on its
land.

But animal lovers have condemned any move to cull the bushy-tailed
rodents as unnecessary and cruel.

Dawn Parkes, founder of South Bucks Justice for Animals, said:
"Squirrels are not pests. I cannot see any reason why they should
want to take such drastic action. For God's sake leave them alone."

Grey squirrels in wooded areas around Amersham could be trapped,
poisoned or even shot during the coming months in a last ditch
attempt to control the town's squirrel population.

Council estate staff have noticed a large number of the animals in
Willow Wood, Parsonage Wood, Hervines Park and Stanley Hill Cemetery
in Amersham. They argue the pests are stripping the bark off trees,
thus putting the long-term future of the woodland under threat.

Amersham's Town Mayor, Cllr Josie Ricketts, is backing a cull.

She said: "I think it's necessary if they are going to do damage
everywhere. I don't like killing animals, I hate anything like that,
but what can you do? I would think shooting would be the easiest
thing."

Amersham Town Council is now seeking advice from conservation groups,
including the Woodland Trust, to come up with the best course of
action.

The optimum period for a cull is mid-March to mid-August, the time
when the most damage to trees is expected.

But animal lover Val Miller, of Flackwell Heath, who owns a tame
squirrel, is worried because this season is also a time when there
are more baby squirrels around.

She said: "These people seem to do it at a time when animals have
their young so there are babies around.

"I just think it's barbaric."

Two years ago, South Bucks Justice for Animals and other groups
managed to block moves by Marlow Town Council for a similar cull
after a series of protests. Estelle Vincent, a spokesman for the
RSPCA, said she did not know how effective a cull would be.

She added: "For each squirrel they kill another one could move in to
take its place they are territorial animals."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1

iQEVAwUBOwk3tNjaDa1jdiHVAQGY1ggAjxLmskh0HEu+01LgEcEqgsEG+579SGH4
oLCTwqXFWQKi1GMHk7wZlzjn23ZlGHagmGoaOGLI39aDIgxLsaRoBXEGzfF1Dna6
I9zJpNKod6zFaMe9K5FDES5dYm6VLR+hQwQnzJM/iFAsJQQMmBEibLpiaFksxN/y
NaYzDRqpsvE/dFuwGHtQlLlRYIcIiKT+EHN+Ch453ncVpE9Jb2BHPJWxE1neBuAZ
F0K5kXSruaXlhqUcLjkQyWiJTdznd7wF4KUQFRkrwxgULmSbGf4wVjG+sg8SjcXD
F7gBZ/XAQbnnQ9vYCPZ3d/lTK4XRr5RprxGhF4ar2qZpRQCnY3+xfA==
=oGRj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING-DUE TO FORGERY-ALL messages written by me are now PGP
signed. please verify signature. Key id: 0x637621D5
key servers: idap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
If it's not signed-ITS NOT ME!

No prizes for guessing what the Woodland Trust will recommend.

_____________________
Roots-of-Blood Campaign
http://www.roots-of-blood.org.uk

Great, does that mean that restaurants in Amersham will start offering
squirrel pie soon? I belive there is a pub which is doing a roaring trade in
squirrel pie and it is supposed to be delicious.

BTW, I find the reference to 'bushy-tailed rodents' quite revealing when
assessing the rationaliy of those protesting. If someone can show details of
whether squirrels numbers have increased to an extent where they are causing
damage (or not as the case may be), then we can decide whether a cull is
appropriate. The fact that they have bushy tails (and I do quite like
watching them myself when I'm out in the woods) is not really a valid
criterion when deciding on the amount of damage they do.

--
athomik

http://www.askadrian.co.uk

I am not confusing the issue. The most economical way of reducing squirrel
numbers is probably a cull. I also cannot imagine anyone wanting to re-home
hundreds of surplus squirrels which would result if a live trapping
programme were to be used.

--
athomik

http://www.askadrian.co.uk

There's meant to be good eating on a squirrel. If cull we must, it seems
sensible to get that economic output from it, don't you think?

A friend of mine has a few old recipies for squirrel - could ask her
to dig them out if there's demand. Cumberland Tree-Rat Pie, anyone?

She's got some recipies for Rook, too. Could probably adapt them
for Magpie.

Hmm.. thinking along these lines makes me *almost* regret being
veggie..

--
Andy Breen ~ Solar Physics Group, UW Aberystwyth
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Silliness is the last refuge of the doomed: P. Opus

So suggest an easier, cheaper and just as reliable method (bearing in mind
that there might be a time limit for the method to have an appreciable
effect.

> A decent conservation group would along with a long term plan for
> future control of then limited numbers!! something you clearly fail to
> comprehend.
>

Name one. And tell me where the money would come from to pay for
accomodation, vets bills, a sterilisation program (required, unless you want
to breed them for profit), retrieval of possible escapees, etc.

--
athomik

http://www.askadrian.co.uk

Skinning/cleaning costs for such a small animal would probably make the meat
uneconomic (unless you could sell the pelt, perhaps). I suggest a
re-education programme for captured squirrels. If they could be trained to
selectively attack rhododendrons and other non-native species, they could
then be released back into the wild as animal agents of the conservation
movement.

Yeah, I wonder whether there might be a market for either Davey Crocket
style squirrel skin hats or eco-warrior squirrel gangs...

> But this is just a reprise of the statements you made about deer. Reduce
> their numbers by some, as yet undiscovered or unavailable or
> impracticable means, then maintain their numbers at the new low level.
> The Grey Squirrel population in Britain is estimated at 2.5 million so
> about 2.5 times the number of deer. Let's hear how you would go about
> reducing their numbers without killing any.

If only there were viable methods for non-lethal population control! No
doubt it will be claimed (again) that such are available, tested, safe, etc,
despite the overwhelming evidence that such is not the case.

> >Yep, get this, ALL WILDLIFE, ALL ANIMALS not just DEER.
> >
> Mosquitoes, midges, rats, woodworm beetles, headlice, tapeworms, deer,
> squirrels, crows, etc., etc. Well, at least we know what we are dealing
> with.

Can't stop there. That would be species-ist. Tardigrades (must stop those
puddles drying up), hydra, rotifers, all animals.

It's fair to say that by not having the guttering on your roof covered to
prevent UV light getting into it, you are responsible for the deaths of
hundreds of animals every day.

> Get real colin please, your not a bad lad but you are so blinded at
> trying to get one over everybody that you cant see the wood for the
> trees!!!
>
> There are many ways to control wildlife that DO NOT include the
> necessity for killing them.
>
> put this in your pipe, just one example.
>
>
> from
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_369000/369327.stm

Yes, I know of that research. Far, far too early days to claim it as a
success. In fact, shall we wait till they actually have some data published
before we say "oh no, there's no need to cull squirrels"?

As far as I'm aware, it's based on ideas described earlier:

Immunocontraception in rodents: A review of the development of a sperm-based
immunocontraceptive vaccine for the grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)
Moore HDM, Jenkins NM, Wong C
REPRODUCTION FERTILITY AND DEVELOPMENT
9 (1): 125-129 1997

As yet, this clearly ain't an option.

Next example, please.

As the article states, the method is still in it's experimental phase and
the success of the trial has not yet been established.

Can you tell us about any humane methods which *have* been proven to be
successful?

--
athomik

http://www.askadrian.co.uk

> ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
> Your sense of humour hasnt improved has it, do you read joke books?

Why do you assume that this is a joke? Is that easier than accepthing the
obvious inconsistency in your philosophy?

> Give up your useless at it.

Ain't a joke. It's true. Learn some biology.

> >Untrue, see SPAYVAC details I provided a while back.
> >the US anti killing groups are having a hard time getting past the pro
> >killing lobby as well.
> >
> I've read all that. They are not available for use in the USA. They are
> not available for use in Britain. Next.

Promising technology, of course, and with some considerable hard work this
may provide an alternative for use in some situations.

It's just wrong to assert that it is already a viable alternative.

> well it's just too stoopid to be a serious question, isnt
> it??.................just what are you spending our money on up there?

Simple question. You are advocating a no-harm policy towards all animals,
and yet you are ignoring examples where by your very existance you bring
harm to other aninals. The roof of your home, for example, is a habitat
inhabited by rotifers and tardigrades, amongst other animals. And every time
it rains they reproduce. Then when they dry out many will die. All because
of the highly artificial nature of man-made surfaces like roofs, roads,
paths, erc.

Of course, this could be prevented by us all living in fields. Do you live
in a field?

Then, another example is grain. Do you think that weevils get sorted out of
the wheat before it is ground? If you use any ground grain (flour, bread,
etc) then you are responsible for needless animal death.

If, for example, you were to become infected with a liver fluke then you
would be faced with the choice of animal death or tremendous suffering to
yourself.

So, how far do you extend your non-lethal philosophy? Where is the cut off?

Maybe not responsible (I blame the millers) but we certainly profit by the
deaths, eating all that valuable low fat insect protein.

Pete answered a similar question quite a while ago, thuswise:

>>>From: The new Savethedeer (savet...@freewayuk.com)
>>>Subject: Re: The Woodland Trust: my standard e-mail message.
>>>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>>>Date: 2001-03-04 08:40:15 PST

>>>I wonder if the
>>>following would be a reasonable interpretation of Pete's position?:

>>>Any species which we can perceive as tending to add more to the world we
>>>experience than it subtracts should not be subject to killing by humans.
>>>Any species which we tend to perceive as subtracting more from the world
we
>>>experience than it adds, should be subject to killing by humans as
>>>necessary.

>>That's about the strength of it, the killing is an absolute last
>>resort and in my opinion the way it is used currently is rarely a last
>>resort, it's a quick fix.

So you don't intend to answer?
Well, we'll just have to be left with what looks like inconsistency, then.

So by killing weevils to make bread, we are making a value judgement. We
perceive it as subtracting more from the world, and thus we kill it.

Same goes for liver flukes, malarial parasites, etc.

But that's still inconsistent. What about the other examples I gave, of
tardigrades and rotifers (to name but two) which we aren't actively killing
but die in masses due to our modern human lifestyle?

And there's more. What about a population factor? Cockroackes, for example,
are a perfectly fair example of a species that, in moderation, does no harm,
but a domestic infestation is clearly a problem that needs dealing with. How
does such fit in with the stated philosophy above?

1) Pete is a troll

2) Pete is very dense

3) Pete shouldn't really be playing with his dad's computer.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Could someone also confirm whether or not Pete is a meat eater ? (he
obviously doesn't know)

--
athomik

http://www.askadrian.co.uk

>
> why, do the sham charities like the RSPB kill them?

Still dodging the questions.

Even if a child is suffering from a tapeworm infection?

Even though by your very esistence in modern society animals (tardigrades
and rotifers in my earlier example) die en masse every day?

> Colin, shut up, your logic is getting as bad as that dumb son atomik
> now!!! and that is the pants.

My logic is sound. It is a pity that you choose to ignore it, there was a
vague chance of this topic going somewhere.

Rob

Terribly sorry, old chap. For a while there it loked like the topic might be
going somewhere (ie, the morality of lethal means of conservation management
in light of the undoubted morality of killing parasites).

What, it is moral to kill all kinds of parasite?

In there lies a whole new kettle of worms!

Clearly, it isn't morally allowable to kill something just because it's a
parasite. But it's also clearly allowable to kill a parasite that threatens
something that has, to us, greater worth. For example, if a parasite
threatens a human life. I should have made myself clear by adding "...such
as liver flukes" after "parasites" in my above posting.

Are you implying that anyone who consumes meat, yet opposes the killing of
animals for some purposes other than food, is a hypocrite? If so, there are
an awful lot of hypocrites around.

1 I think so he's in my killfile.

Stop feeding him and he'll go away.
>

Regards from : Using a : Software for RISC OS:Conservation Pages
Robert Seago : StrongArm RiscPC : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
--

> >Then, another example is grain. Do you think that weevils get sorted out of

Presumably they have accumulated that protein from the very grain. No
gain there probably.

Possibly there are.

However, I would regard as a hypocrite anyone who berates and libels
those who have to make a difficult moral choice but is completely
incapable of making a relatively simple one for himself.

Shows complete lack of moral fibre and weakness of character if you ask
me (-:

--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot

Note that Pete failed to answer this perfectly reasonable question with
anything but abuse.
--
Andy Mabbett

A 1998 survey of 48 restaurants' chicken tikka masalas
found that the only common ingredient was chicken.