Victimising Grey Squirrels
Version 2. December 2009

1. Native Species?

A key criterion set by the conservation industry for determining if a
species is "native" is that it should have evolved with all other
species within its own ecosystem and not have been introduced or
assisted by man to arrive at what is regarded as its natural location.
In short, it should have got to where it is by its own efforts and
evolved naturally. If man assisted it, it is regarded as
"non-native".

This is confirmed in Scottish Natural Heritage's website:

"3.5. Native species are presumed to be those that are present in
Great Britain by natural means. In general they migrated (or were
transported by other species) into Great Britain after the last Ice
Age, without the assistance of humans."

"3.6. Non-native species have been introduced to Great Britain,
either deliberately or accidentally, by humans.

However, this criterion is profoundly flawed and is only credible if
the actions of humans are wrongly regarded as outside of nature.

There is no doubt that in the animal world we are pretty smart
cookies. We have evolved to manufacture modes of air, sea and land
transport, store extensions of our memories on computers, provide
ourselves with heat and light, cut ourselves open to remove diseased
tissue, grow our own animal and vegetable food, and destroy other
members of our own species with unimaginable ferocity if they dare to
compete with us for desirable objectives. But none of this excludes
us from nature. It only shows we have the mental and physical capacity
to use tools and weapons made from natural resources to a greater
degree than any other species on the planet. So as we are part of
nature, it follows that if we transport fauna or flora to our homeland
because we find them attractive, then the claim that these
introductions are only acceptable if "transported by other species" is
exposed as anthropocentric prejudice, masquerading as science, which
serves to undermine the whole concept of native and non-native species

In fact, the survival of all species depends almost solely on their
attractiveness to other members of their own species, and in many
cases their attraction to other species as well. It is ironic that
that attractiveness, which is leading conservationists to "protect"
the red squirrel, was the reason for introducing grey squirrels in the
past.

Conversely, it is equally ironic that both red and grey squirrels have
been demonised as "tree rats" at different times, which has led to
tens of thousands being slaughtered because they were intensely
disliked for similar reasons.

Also, if it is important to conservationists that a species evolves
naturally over millennia in Britain to earn its "native species"
status, then it should be equally important that the same species
evolving in a different natural environment abroad should not be
regarded as "native" to this country. They can't have it both ways!
But they try.

It is well known that the grey squirrel was brought from America to
England in the late 19th Century but less known that ancestors of the
current population of red squirrels in the UK have been largely
introduced from various parts of Europe. These animals evolved within
a wide range of climatic and environmental conditions and associated
with different flora and fauna encountered across the part of the
range they inhabited, so for conservationists to argue that these
influences are not important is to argue against their own concept of
"native species".

Both current populations of squirrels, red and grey, have been
introduced to this country and there is no evidence that even the
earlier red squirrels evolved here continuously from the time of the
land bridge to Europe around 10,000 years ago. Scant archaeological
snapshots give no indication of a continued presence. Indeed, prior
to the 15th century there seems to be no record of the continuous
existence of red squirrel populations living in Britain.

"There is no longer a 'native' red squirrel due to the frequent
introductions from Europe and habitat defragmentation which has
allowed gene flow between previously sub-divided populations." (Harris
et al, 2007)


2. Habitat and diet

A common assertion is "when greys move in, reds move out" but the
blame should not be laid at the door of grey squirrels, but at the
conservationists themselves. If conservationists want to assist the
red squirrels to survive, they should be improving their habitat by
planting suitable conifer trees in which they thrive, instead of the
political and identity-crisis fad of wallpapering the countryside with
native broadleaves that favours the greys' expansion and the reds'
demise. The requirement to plant trees that favour the red squirrel
as a barrier to the greys' expansion is well known to the Forestry
Commission.

Red and grey squirrels have a significantly different diet. A study
published in the Mammal Review showed that while both species fed
mostly on seeds and fruit' they could adapt to an abundance of other
foods at times of seasonal shortages. In particular the red squirrel
was found to largely consume fungi and conifer buds when seeds and
fruit were scarce. Greys, on the other hand, will eat acorns - which
reds find difficult to digest - and a host of other foods, as widely
ranging from deciduous shoots to roots and perhaps the occasional
discarded fast food take-a-way that comes their way. Neither species
is a serial predator of birds' eggs or chicks but they won't pass up
an opportunity if it presents itself.


3. Tree Damage

"Damage to trees can be beneficial (Forestry Commission, 2006), as
wounding can provide habitat for saproxylic fungi and invertebrates,
which in turn provide food for woodland birds. Trees killed by
squirrel damage can also provide valuable nesting sites for a range of
species." (Harris et al 2007)


4. Squirrel-pox Virus (SQPV)

Conservationists tell us that grey squirrels are the "cause" of the
red squirrel decline through the transmission of squirrel-pox virus
(SQPV) but there is no evidence to support this. It is merely
speculation presented as fact. There are a number of ongoing grant
funded studies to try to determine the route of infection but would
this expensive research be required if the route was already known?

It is known that the disease characteristics are similar to other
poxvirus infections and that most are resistant to drying. This can
allow infected lesions or crusts to remain infected for a long time
thus allowing the spread of the disease throughout the forest
environment by almost any creature that comes into contact with it.
Indeed, Scottish Natural Heritage admit they do not know the route of
transmission and that "possibilities include being passed by
ectoparasites, fleas, lice, ticks and mites which may transfer from
animal to animal in the dreys". They also acknowledge the virus may be
airborne spread. Research by McInnes et al in 2006 acknowledges "the
possibility that the virus is endemic to the UK and that other rodent
species inhabiting the same woodland environment could be harbouring
the virus.

Under a Freedom of Information request "The Forestry Commission have
admitted that no routine testing of live red squirrels is undertaken"
and they "are not aware of any scientific evidence one way or another
as to whether or not there is a resistant population of reds out
there". So it is quite wrong to claim red squirrels have no immunity
to the disease. Indeed, recent research by London zoologists has
established that red squirrels are beginning to show signs of natural
immunity.

Early in the last century, out of forty-four districts in England
where red squirrels had the disease only four districts had grey
squirrels present. This suggests that SQPV has been within the red
squirrel population for around a century at least and that grey
squirrels are victims of a campaign of unfair vilification. Some
people even have the audacity to claim that SQPV somehow arrived
around the time it was discovered in 1983 but that is about as
ridiculous as claiming America didn't exist before it was "discovered"
by Leif Ericson - centuries before Christopher Columbus was born.


5. Immunocontraception

Immunocontraception was deemed immoral in the 1930s in mainland
Europe, when it was proposed against sectors of the human population.
It is equally immoral to use it against wildlife, as it could affect
non-target species and introduce a significant risk of unintended
consequences. Unscrupulous conservationists could also use it as a
weapon of mass destruction of any species in an attempt to control
nature. How long before this dangerous technology, if perfected,
could be used against the human population? It is not a route that
should be considered by any right thinking people.


6. Culling of Grey Squirrels

Culling doesn't work except in closed environments such as islands.
According to research it would cost £200,000 per annum to control
grey squirrels in Northumberland's Redesdale Forest alone. - Rushton
et al (2002) - and would require to be repeated endlessly as greys
will quickly re-colonised voids, sometimes within a few weeks. Culling
greys across Scotland will be an expensive and futile exercise. It is
well known that culling can lead to an increase in population as those
left alive enjoy a better habitat and produce more young.

"Squirrel culling is not a new phenomenon. Some 60 years ago the
Ministry of Agriculture started to encourage people to kill squirrels,
offering-I remember it only too clearly-a shilling a tail. I became a
very wealthy young man at that time, as we had a lot of grey squirrels
in the area and I did not need a lot of encouragement to do something
about them. When the government at that time had paid out some
£250,000, they decided that that was enough. There was no perceivable
difference to the squirrel population." Lord Plumb, March 2006

In Merseyside, a buffer zone has been in place for a number of years
where grey squirrels are killed. However, increased human
exploitation of red squirrels for tourism and the frequent intrusion
by conservationists for monitoring population levels was always likely
to lead to stress and loss of condition of the red squirrel resulting
in an increased susceptibility to disease. The announcement that the
red squirrel population had declined by 90% in the past two years was
hardly surprising.

In short, fewer grey squirrels with more conservation and tourist
intrusion have resulted in a massive decline in the red squirrel
population - definitely not the predicted outcome.

Very recently, The Lancashire Wildlife Trust has claimed productive
breeding of red squirrels in Merseyside over the summer has seen
numbers rise from between 100 to 200 in October 2008 to between 200 to
400 in October 2009. However, alert readers will note the margin for
error has doubled in real terms and for that statement to be true only
two additional red squirrels would require to have been born - from
199 to 201. Indeed, a method of counting reds is to record sightings,
which could be the same squirrel seen multiple times by different
people, and then multiply the result by 7. This hardly inspires
confidence in accuracy!

In a recent Radio 4 "Living World" broadcast, a Cumbria Wildlife Trust
officer failed to find a single red squirrel for the presenter in
Thirlmere woodland where there is reputed to be a population of "at
least 200". If they can't find one for the BBC, how do they know
there are 200? This is where a Red Squirrel Trail tour, with no
guarantee of seeing a red squirrel, costs a member of the public
"twenty quid".

Evidential claims made by conservationists are frequently littered
with slippery qualifiers that include words like "presumed to be",
"thought to be", "possibly", "perhaps", "may be", etc. and used as
escape routes from being held to account. The careful reader is well
advised to look out for these qualifiers before coming to any
conclusion as to the merit of any particular claim.


7. Humane dispatch or brutality

Grey squirrels usually mate from December to February and again in
March to May, although Forest Research has established that they mate
all year round. Gestation takes up to 44 days and the young are
usually weaned short of three months. This means that most kittens
will be dependent on lactating females from mid January to
mid-October. Trapping and killing these females at this time results
in the extreme cruelty of sentencing their kittens to a lingering
death from starvation. There is nothing "humane" about that! It is
an act of extreme cruelty.

What is "humane" anyway? "Humane" and "humane as possible" are words
frequently used by conservationists to describe the killing of
wildlife. So what exactly do these words mean or are they merely
euphemistic references to brutality?

Red squirrel groups are currently engaged in what they call the
"humane dispatch" of grey squirrels by clubbing them over the head
with a blunt instrument. However, Scottish Natural Heritage's area
manager for Shetland rightly condemned the brutal killing of
twenty-one grey seal pups by a local fisherman, who clubbed them over
the head with a blunt instrument. He said, "This is a shocking case.
The degree of casual cruelty shows that there is still a great deal of
ignorance and prejudice about grey seals". But let us not forget
that SNH, together with the Scottish Wildlife Trust and others are
currently engaged in the "humane dispatch" of grey squirrels by the
same method, which amounts to gross hypocrisy and double standards.

Clubbing a grey squirrel over the head is an act of violence and is
being promoted and perpetrated nation-wide by government and red
squirrel groups. Scientific evidence shows that those who have little
regard for the welfare of animals are likely to have a similar
attitude to their fellow human beings. Abuse breeds abuse, and in our
ever-increasing violent society, what example is it to younger
generations that violence and killing is an acceptable solution to a
perceived problem of not being native to this country?

Putting aside the argument of whether the animal is a "protected" grey
seal or a grey squirrel, it is logical to say that if the method of
dispatch is similar, there is no excuse for describing it differently.
All sentient animals feel pain irrespective of whether they are
"protected" or otherwise.


8. One small step from racism

In reality, rather than in the arbitrary and profoundly prejudiced
world of "conservation", all squirrels born in this country are as
"native" by birth as we are, irrespective of their colour, background
or success. To expect tolerance within our own population but
condemn these animals to death on the basis of their ancestral
background is extremely hypocritical and only one small step removed
from racism.


It should be appreciated that squirrels, of any colour, are not
"ours". They are independent parallel mammalian populations that
inhabit this planet the same as we do and should be afforded the same
respect and consideration to live out their lives that we expect for
ourselves.


The Grey Squirrel
Native by birth - Condemned by origin

Please read the website
www.grey-squirrel.org.uk



December 2009 ©