Vegetarian Discussion: Is Culling Of Grey Squirrels A Viable Tactic To Conserve Red Squirrel Populations? Part 1 Of 3

Is Culling Of Grey Squirrels A Viable Tactic To Conserve Red Squirrel Populations? Part 1 Of 3
Posts: 25

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Geoff
2006-11-06 10:59:05 EST
http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/pdf/cullinggreysquirrelsl.pdf

Stephen Harris, Carl D. Soulsbury and Graziella IossaSchool of
Biological Science, University of Bristol, Woodland Rd, Bristol, BS8
1UG

SUMMARY

•Red squirrels populations have historically undergone large
population fluctuations.Causes include habitat loss and disease. At
various times in the 19thand 20thcentury,red squirrels from Europe
have been introduced to re-establish or augmentpopulations.
Genetically, red squirrels in Britain are not distinct from those in
Europe.•Grey squirrels have been introduced to various localities in
Britain. Despite culling,these populations have now spread over most
of England and Wales, and into manyparts of Scotland.

•Red squirrel populations are declining for two reasons: ecological
displacement bygrey squirrels, which may take many years, and squirrel
poxvirus (SQPV). Greysquirrels act as vectors for SQPV and aid the
spread of this disease into novel redsquirrel populations. Grey
squirrels quickly fill the vacant ecological niche when redsquirrel
populations die out from SQPV.

•It is widely argued that controlling grey squirrel numbers is the
best way ofconserving red squirrels. However, there is little evidence
to support this belief.Most squirrel control is carried out with
warfarin, but only live trapping and/orshooting can be carried out in
areas with reds.Attempts to create animmunocontraceptive for grey
squirrels have failed and no biological control methodsare currently
available.

•Most control is done within the context of protecting commercial
woodlands fromsquirrel damage. There is mixed evidence that grey or
red squirrel control worked;bounties schemes in the past have proved
unsuccessful at lowering populationnumbers. Success has been limited
to isolated populations such as islands; greysquirrels can colonize
areas quickly, so most grey squirrel control is ineffective.

•Grey squirrels can damage commercial forestry and are cited as having
a negativeimpact on woodland birds. Whilst the evidence with regard to
commercial forestry isunequivocal, controlling squirrel numbers is not
always effective and currentsilviculture techniques may exacerbate the
problem. There is at best limited data tosuggest the minor role of
grey squirrel’s impact on two species of woodland bird.These arguments
ignore damage to forestry and predation on woodland birds
thathistorically were attributed to red squirrels when they were more
abundant. Inaddition, no consideration is given to the benefits that
grey squirrels may have,including the formation of deadwood, an
important component of biodiversewoodlands

•Culling of grey squirrels could lead to more problems than solutions.
Culling maylead to an increased localised density, an increase in
forest damage levels andincrease the spread of disease.

•Red squirrel populations will continue to decline in the face of
increased ecologicaldisplacement by grey squirrels and SQPV. Novel
techniques need to be devised toprotect red squirrels. These include
setting island refugia, and developing aneffective and humane way to
eliminate grey squirrels.

•Large sums of money are being spent on red squirrel conservation.
However, thismoney is not spent wisely. Whilst red squirrels are
native to Britain, many of thepopulations are recently introduced
European stock, and so even if red squirrels doeventually disappear
from Britain, they could easily be reintroduced again. Globally,red
squirrel populations are not threatened and the conservation effort in
Britain is of little importance.

A*@aol.com
2006-11-06 16:01:54 EST
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:59:05 +0000, Geoff <g23434ssd@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/pdf/cullinggreysquirrelsl.pdf
>
>Stephen Harris, Carl D. Soulsbury and Graziella IossaSchool of
>Biological Science, University of Bristol, Woodland Rd, Bristol, BS8
>1UG
>
>SUMMARY
>
>•Red squirrels populations have historically undergone large
>population fluctuations.Causes include habitat loss and disease. At
>various times in the 19thand 20thcentury,red squirrels from Europe
>have been introduced to re-establish or augmentpopulations.
>Genetically, red squirrels in Britain are not distinct from those in
>Europe.•Grey squirrels have been introduced to various localities in
>Britain. Despite culling,these populations have now spread over most
>of England and Wales, and into manyparts of Scotland.
>
>•Red squirrel populations are declining for two reasons: ecological
>displacement bygrey squirrels, which may take many years, and squirrel
>poxvirus (SQPV). Greysquirrels act as vectors for SQPV and aid the
>spread of this disease into novel redsquirrel populations. Grey
>squirrels quickly fill the vacant ecological niche when redsquirrel
>populations die out from SQPV.
>
>•It is widely argued that controlling grey squirrel numbers is the
>best way ofconserving red squirrels. However, there is little evidence
>to support this belief.Most squirrel control is carried out with
>warfarin, but only live trapping and/orshooting can be carried out in
>areas with reds.Attempts to create animmunocontraceptive for grey
>squirrels have failed and no biological control methodsare currently
>available.
>
>•Most control is done within the context of protecting commercial
>woodlands fromsquirrel damage. There is mixed evidence that grey or
>red squirrel control worked;bounties schemes in the past have proved
>unsuccessful at lowering populationnumbers. Success has been limited
>to isolated populations such as islands; greysquirrels can colonize
>areas quickly, so most grey squirrel control is ineffective.
>
>•Grey squirrels can damage commercial forestry and are cited as having
>a negativeimpact on woodland birds. Whilst the evidence with regard to
>commercial forestry isunequivocal, controlling squirrel numbers is not
>always effective and currentsilviculture techniques may exacerbate the
>problem. There is at best limited data tosuggest the minor role of
>grey squirrel’s impact on two species of woodland bird.These arguments
>ignore damage to forestry and predation on woodland birds
>thathistorically were attributed to red squirrels when they were more
>abundant. Inaddition, no consideration is given to the benefits that
>grey squirrels may have,including the formation of deadwood, an
>important component of biodiversewoodlands
>
>•Culling of grey squirrels could lead to more problems than solutions.
>Culling maylead to an increased localised density, an increase in
>forest damage levels andincrease the spread of disease.
>
>•Red squirrel populations will continue to decline in the face of
>increased ecologicaldisplacement by grey squirrels and SQPV. Novel
>techniques need to be devised toprotect red squirrels. These include
>setting island refugia, and developing aneffective and humane way to
>eliminate grey squirrels.
>
>•Large sums of money are being spent on red squirrel conservation.
>However, thismoney is not spent wisely. Whilst red squirrels are
>native to Britain, many of thepopulations are recently introduced
>European stock, and so even if red squirrels doeventually disappear
>from Britain, they could easily be reintroduced again. Globally,red
>squirrel populations are not threatened and the conservation effort in
>Britain is of little importance.


100% right!

The fakes are in this for their own grant sucking benefit.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Dutch
2006-11-06 17:53:10 EST
<*4@aol.com> wrote
> All truth passes through three stages:
> First, it is ridiculed;
> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

The fallacious implication of this quote... "If you ridicule and oppose what
I am saying that means it must be true."



A*@aol.com
2006-11-06 18:16:24 EST
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:53:10 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
>> All truth passes through three stages:
>> First, it is ridiculed;
>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>
>The fallacious implication of this quote... "If you ridicule and oppose what
>I am saying that means it must be true."
>


Read it again :-)


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Dutch
2006-11-07 01:22:48 EST

<*4@aol.com> wrote
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:53:10 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>
>>The fallacious implication of this quote... "If you ridicule and oppose
>>what
>>I am saying that means it must be true."
>>
>
>
> Read it again :-)

Why, what will that accomplish? I think you should follow your own
suggestion and read my comment again.




A*@aol.com
2006-11-07 03:28:12 EST
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:22:48 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:53:10 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>>
>>>The fallacious implication of this quote... "If you ridicule and oppose
>>>what
>>>I am saying that means it must be true."
>>>
>>
>>
>> Read it again :-)
>
>Why, what will that accomplish? I think you should follow your own
>suggestion and read my comment again.
>
>

You're confused.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Dutch
2006-11-07 03:59:59 EST

<*4@aol.com> wrote in message
news:prg0l2h0au8calcb8fc6lhi6jn58nu8ghn@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:22:48 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:53:10 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>>>
>>>>The fallacious implication of this quote... "If you ridicule and oppose
>>>>what
>>>>I am saying that means it must be true."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read it again :-)
>>
>>Why, what will that accomplish? I think you should follow your own
>>suggestion and read my comment again.
>>
>>
>
> You're confused.

No, I am not, you are dense. The majority of ideas that are ridiculed and
violently opposed are so regarded because they are crap. Therefore if you
find that your ideas are treated this way do not conclude that they
represent truth, because they are mostly likely crap.




A*@aol.com
2006-11-07 04:25:14 EST
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:59:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:prg0l2h0au8calcb8fc6lhi6jn58nu8ghn@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:22:48 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:53:10 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>>>>
>>>>>The fallacious implication of this quote... "If you ridicule and oppose
>>>>>what
>>>>>I am saying that means it must be true."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read it again :-)
>>>
>>>Why, what will that accomplish? I think you should follow your own
>>>suggestion and read my comment again.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're confused.
>
>No, I am not, you are dense.

Not at all.

>The majority of ideas that are ridiculed and
>violently opposed are so regarded because they are crap.

In your flawed opinion. Most are ridiculed because they don't suit the
ridiculer's agenda.

>Therefore if you
>find that your ideas are treated this way do not conclude that they
>represent truth, because they are mostly likely crap.

Again, in your flawed opinion.

If there's any crap about, it's your logic :-))






Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Geoff
2006-11-07 04:45:35 EST
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:59:59 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:prg0l2h0au8calcb8fc6lhi6jn58nu8ghn@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:22:48 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:53:10 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>>>>
>>>>>The fallacious implication of this quote... "If you ridicule and oppose
>>>>>what
>>>>>I am saying that means it must be true."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read it again :-)
>>>
>>>Why, what will that accomplish? I think you should follow your own
>>>suggestion and read my comment again.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're confused.
>
>No, I am not, you are dense. The majority of ideas that are ridiculed and
>violently opposed are so regarded because they are crap.

Then you know nothing about science, history, maths, logic etc. You're
an ass! It figures.

> Therefore if you
>find that your ideas are treated this way do not conclude that they
>represent truth, because they are mostly likely crap.

Do you actually have anything to say on the message?



BAC
2006-11-07 04:47:59 EST

"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:12l0iogg41mlv72@news.supernews.com...
>
> <amacmil304@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:prg0l2h0au8calcb8fc6lhi6jn58nu8ghn@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:22:48 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
> >>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:53:10 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>><amacmil304@aol.com> wrote
> >>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
> >>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
> >>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> >>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> >>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
> >>>>
> >>>>The fallacious implication of this quote... "If you ridicule and
oppose
> >>>>what
> >>>>I am saying that means it must be true."
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Read it again :-)
> >>
> >>Why, what will that accomplish? I think you should follow your own
> >>suggestion and read my comment again.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You're confused.
>
> No, I am not, you are dense. The majority of ideas that are ridiculed and
> violently opposed are so regarded because they are crap. Therefore if you
> find that your ideas are treated this way do not conclude that they
> represent truth, because they are mostly likely crap.
>
>
>

So, if, for the sake of argument, a handful of people (e.g. some Usenet
posters) were to describe your idea of the way Schopenhauer's quote should
be interpreted as an illogical crock of shit, and to suggest it must be the
product of a warped mind of negligible intellect, would that mean it was
'most likely crap', in your opinion?

How about the theory of evolution of species? That was (still is)
vehemently opposed/rejected by a sizeable number of people, does that make
it 'likely crap', in your opinion?


Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron