Alien conservationists!

“Save our native red squirrels and kill the alien greys”, is the
message being churned out by so-called conservationists in a cynical
and concerted hate campaign aimed at gaining public approval for the
mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of these harmless, amusing,
friendly and social animals.

So what’s behind all this and is it justified? Of course it’s not!

It is beyond dispute that the grey squirrel species originated from
America but it is also beyond dispute that individual greys born here
are native to this country. The very meaning of the word “native” is
to be born, and it is grey squirrels born here and native to this
country that are being mercilessly slaughtered. And when a grey
squirrel is shot or poisoned it is not the “species” that is being
killed - it's the native individual.

By the same token, individual red squirrels are also native to this
country but it is questionable whether the ancestors of the current
population in Scotland were any less “alien” than the ancestors of the
greys. Around the mid 1800s red squirrels were considered extinct in
Scotland and were introduced from a variety of sources. The population
increased successfully, only to be killed in large numbers by
landowners who considered them as pests. Ironically this is what’s
happening to greys now.

The idea that the pox virus is transmitted from greys to reds is far
from proven. Indeed, it has been suggested the same virus might well
have caused a previous population decline in reds, long before grey
squirrels existed in the UK. Furthermore, the government’s Joint
Nature Conservation Website states the following:

· The origin of squirrel poxvirus in red squirrels is unknown
· Research shows that the antibodies to the virus are common in some
grey squirrel populations but only one case of disease has been found
in a grey squirrel, whilst very few red squirrels carry the antibodies
to the virus.
· It is therefore possible that grey squirrels act as a reservoir host
(carrier) for the virus whilst the majority of red squirrels affected
with poxvirus appear to die within a week of becoming infected.

A policy of slaughter meted out to grey squirrels based on unknowns
and possibilities is as outrageous as it is unfair.

This policy against grey squirrels is one of intolerance and
discrimination and has an almost exact parallel to that of pre-war
Nazi Germany where the same venom and hate was directed at people
deemed not to be genetically pure, of ethnic origin or in numbers that
were considered to be a threat to the Aryan population. This led to
millions of innocent people being slaughtered in the following years.
It’s worth bearing in mind that Intolerance of animals is only one
step from intolerance of humans.

Saving the red squirrel population is desirable but not to the extent
of slaughtering greys. Improving the reds habitat, which could include
planting appropriate tree species such as Scots pine, larch, Norway
spruce, lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, yew, hawthorn and even the North
American Sitca spruce are all measures that can favour red squirrels.
Other native and non-native species can be planted to act as barriers
to greys in areas inhabited by reds. These solutions are well known to
conservationists but intensely disliked because it goes against their
obsession for all things native.


So the next time you see a grey squirrel remember he was born here and
is just as “native” as us - and forget what the conservation fanatics
want you to believe, that he is some form of alien being.

Indeed, if there are any “aliens” among us, it’s the conservationists;
not the grey squirrels.


Angus Macmillan

March 2006.






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

There's no doubt that there is a pest aspect of grey squirrels, particularly where they damage trees, predate on small birds and chew up garden bird feeders. However, I would not wish to see the grey squirrel controlled and I think that a lot of the 'countryside do-gooders' who are promoting this are wrong. As you have said Angus, the grey squirrel is now native to the UK and is part of the ecology of the UK. As with most ecological systems, they become balanced if man doesn't interfere!

On a personal note, my summer 'el fresco' breakfasts on the patio, would not be the same without the grey squirrel's company! It rather annoys me to hear that some of my near neighbours have joined the 'trap and kill the squirrel' campaign..... especially when most of them have cats!!

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

snip

Is it
a "balance" to gain one introduced species at the expense of another
indigenous one? Is it a "balance" when mink supplant water voles on our
rivers?


Of course it's a 'balance' (if I may use that term in this context), since
the ecosystem will have been adjusting/adapting to changes in circumstances,
including the presence of 'new' species and the absence of 'old' ones. It
might not be the 'balance' some people prefer and are prepared to accept, of
course, but it's a 'balance' nonetheless.

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

But in this particular case the squirrels are here because man
interfered by introducing them in the first place.


And the "balance" you mention can only happen at the expense
of our native red squirrel. Is it a "balance" to gain one
introduced species at the expense of another indigenous one?
Is it a "balance" when mink supplant water voles on our
rivers?

snippage



If man, and man alone, is the primary cause of all these
imbalances - which he indeed is - then if they really exercise
you that much, then the answer seems pretty obvious. Get
rid of man. Because "interfering" with nature in various ways,
is part of man's self elected role on the Earth, and always
has been.

Which in itself doesn't justify meeting out wanton cruelty to
defenceless creatures which are capable of feeling pain,
but that's another matter.

I suggest you console yourself with the fact that life
forms of one form or another, all the way up from trilobites
through woodlouse and silver fish equivalents, all the way
up to cats and squirrels and chimpanzees co-existed
quite happily for 350 million years, prior to man's arrival
on the scene. And his brief 250,000 year tenure on the
earth as homo sapiens, let alone his 20,000 year(?) long,
totally unsuccessful campaign to fully mould nature to his
will. And will doubtless take up where they left off, once
humans depart the scene. Be it from totally resistant viruses
such as a highly contagious strain of influenza; climatic castrophes
brought about by global warming, volcanic activity or meteor
strikes; nuclear or biological warfare; nuclear accidents,
chronic water shortages, or more simply a surfeit of
MacDonalds hamburgers. The demise of the red squirrel
in the UK should be the least of mankind's worries IMO.
The likes of cockroaches, slugs, fungi, and bacteria
are going to win in the end, whatever we do.


michael adams






--
Malcolm

"Pest Effects" wrote in message
...

There's no doubt that there is a pest aspect of grey squirrels,
particularly where they damage trees, predate on small birds
and chew up garden bird feeders.

They've never succeeded in chewing up one of mine.
Made up of a double thickness of quarter inch mesh -
as found in any DIY shed, formed into a roll with
half a tin can at either end. All held together
with lengths of galvanised wire which also serve
as perches for the birds.



michael adams

....









--
Pest Effects

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , michael adams
writes

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

But in this particular case the squirrels are here because man
interfered by introducing them in the first place.


And the "balance" you mention can only happen at the expense
of our native red squirrel. Is it a "balance" to gain one
introduced species at the expense of another indigenous one?
Is it a "balance" when mink supplant water voles on our
rivers?

snippage



If man, and man alone, is the primary cause of all these
imbalances - which he indeed is - then if they really exercise
you that much,

Who said they did?

....

Okey dokey..

....


then the answer seems pretty obvious. Get
rid of man. Because "interfering" with nature in various ways,
is part of man's self elected role on the Earth, and always
has been.

Perfectly true. Man interfered by introducing the grey squirrel. Man is
interfering again by trying to control its numbers in those parts of the
country which still have reds. Some people seem to think that this
second interference shouldn't take place.

Which in itself doesn't justify meeting out wanton cruelty to
defenceless creatures which are capable of feeling pain,
but that's another matter.

Except that that's often given as the justification against a second
interference.

....

That's very much a straw man, IMO. Or possibly trollery by whoever
suggested it.

The people proposing intervention don't regard it as constituting
cruelty, wanton or otherwise, but simple necessity

However trying to eradicate grey squirrels in the UK by this stage
is quite probably doomed to failure. I very much doubt if anyone
with any real knowledge of the subject seriously suggests otherwise.
Or at least that they won't eventually recolonise the whole of the
U.K, and certainly those areas where they presently constitute
the greatest threat.

Trying to reverse one foolish introduction by a similarly foolish
remedy, is more a testament to human vanity and pig-headedness
in the face of recalcitrant nature IMO, than it is of any
essential propensity to wanton cruelty.

....

I suggest you console yourself with the fact that life
forms of one form or another, all the way up from trilobites
through woodlouse and silver fish equivalents, all the way
up to cats and squirrels and chimpanzees co-existed
quite happily for 350 million years, prior to man's arrival
on the scene.

Err, the mere fact of evolution denies your claim that they "co-existed
quite happily" :-)

....

No the "happily" refers to the fact that an equilibrium of sorts
existed to the extent that they all survived as species. Whether
they were all happy as individuals, probably not. Presumably
they will all have had their good days and bad days in terms
of their predator/prey identity.

....


And his brief 250,000 year tenure on the
earth as homo sapiens, let alone his 20,000 year(?) long,
totally unsuccessful campaign to fully mould nature to his
will. And will doubtless take up where they left off, once
humans depart the scene. Be it from totally resistant viruses
such as a highly contagious strain of influenza; climatic castrophes
brought about by global warming, volcanic activity or meteor
strikes; nuclear or biological warfare; nuclear accidents,
chronic water shortages, or more simply a surfeit of
MacDonalds hamburgers. The demise of the red squirrel
in the UK should be the least of mankind's worries IMO.
The likes of cockroaches, slugs, fungi, and bacteria
are going to win in the end, whatever we do.

Some would say that viruses will "win".

....

ISTR that all viruses need a host.

If so, then they're probably not quite so foolish as to wipe
everything else out.

They didn't get where they are today, by........

Although it's indeed possible to see most higher life forms as
existing simply as vectors for viruses, and similar pathogens.
Which apparently can lay dormant for centuries. Just waiting
for the right moment....




michael adams

....


--
Malcolm

In article ,
Malcolm writes:
|
| The grey squirrel has become *naturalised* in the UK, but this does not
| and cannot make it "native". Angus's claim that any squirrel born here
| is "native" does not make the whole species native. And, yes, obviously
| they are a part of the country's ecology and became so from the day the
| first ones were released. They are, though, having a harmful effect on
| native species, not just the red squirrel but trees, too. If nothing is
| done about them, there is every expectation that the red squirrel will
| become extinct on mainland Britain. Do you want to see that happen?

In the case of many UK terrestrial mammals, plants and birds, and a fair
proportion of invertebrates, the distinction between native and naturalised
is very dubious.

Except for the VERY few that lasted through the last ice age or have
effectively no association with humans (and not totally clearly even for
all of them), we have no evidence whether the species were brought by
early post-glacial humans or not, whether deliberately or accidentally.
And there has been a hell of a lot of reintroduction and transfer of
'native' species since.

Red squirrels probably were not, though whether the Scottish populations
should be classified as native or naturalised is moot. But we know that
some hunter-gatherer communities kept pets, so they COULD have been
introduced.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "michael adams" contains these words:


I suggest you console yourself with the fact that life
forms of one form or another, all the way up from trilobites
through woodlouse and silver fish equivalents, all the way
up to cats and squirrels and chimpanzees co-existed
quite happily for 350 million years, prior to man's arrival
on the scene.

That simply isn't true. Species did not anthropomorphically "co-exist
quite happily", they predated on each other.

....

And in order for them to predate on each other....

The "quite happily" refers to the equilibrium which necessarily
existed between them, not to their emotional state in any
anthropomorphic sense. In terms of their continue existence
as species, this co-existence with other species was "fortunate",
"happy", "convenient", whatever. Herbivores happily coexisted
with grasses etc. Grazing by herbivores was beneficial to grasses.
Both in terms of manuring and promoting growth by constant pruning.
Carnivores preyed on herbivores. Bacteria and fungi consumed dead
carnivores. The bacteria from rotten carnivores and herbivores *
fixed atmospheric nitrogen in the soil which also fed the grasses.
A bit simplistic but there you go. All happily coexisting. Species
died out, of course they did. Nobody denies that.

....

Many became extinct (for
various reasons) long before man came on the scene; we only know of
their existence from fossilised remains.

....

Indeed. But any life forms which did exist, we can assume must
have co-existed in a state of equilibrium with some other life
forms. Be they bacteria, viruses, trilobites, insects, plants,
animals etc. Or maybe only different strains of bacteria. All
quite happily co-existing. La de da!


michael adams


* carrion


Janet

wrote in message
...
Alien conservationists!

"Save our native red squirrels and kill the alien greys", is the
message being churned out by so-called conservationists in a cynical
and concerted hate campaign aimed at gaining public approval for the
mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of these harmless, amusing,
friendly and social animals.

So what's behind all this and is it justified? Of course it's not!

Taking into account the damage the tree rats do, it is most certainly
justified!

Alan

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Pest Effects" wrote in message
...

There's no doubt that there is a pest aspect of grey squirrels,
particularly where they damage trees, predate on small birds
and chew up garden bird feeders.

They've never succeeded in chewing up one of mine.
Made up of a double thickness of quarter inch mesh -
as found in any DIY shed, formed into a roll with
half a tin can at either end. All held together
with lengths of galvanised wire which also serve
as perches for the birds.

But it is wrong that one has to go to those lengths in order to feed birds.

Alan



michael adams

...









--
Pest Effects

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Pest Effects" wrote in message
...

There's no doubt that there is a pest aspect of grey squirrels,
particularly where they damage trees, predate on small birds
and chew up garden bird feeders.

They've never succeeded in chewing up one of mine.
Made up of a double thickness of quarter inch mesh -
as found in any DIY shed, formed into a roll with
half a tin can at either end. All held together
with lengths of galvanised wire which also serve
as perches for the birds.

But it is wrong that one has to go to those lengths in order to
feed birds.

Alan


No it isn't.

It gives me an opportunity to demonstrate my insufferable smugness
for one thing.



michael adams

....






michael adams

...









--
Pest Effects

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "michael adams" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "michael adams" contains these words:


I suggest you console yourself with the fact that life
forms of one form or another, all the way up from trilobites
through woodlouse and silver fish equivalents, all the way
up to cats and squirrels and chimpanzees co-existed
quite happily for 350 million years, prior to man's arrival
on the scene.

That simply isn't true. Species did not anthropomorphically "co-exist
quite happily", they predated on each other.

....

And in order for them to predate on each other....

The "quite happily" refers to the equilibrium which necessarily
existed between them, not to their emotional state in any
anthropomorphic sense. In terms of their continue existence
as species, this co-existence with other species was "fortunate",
"happy", "convenient", whatever.



Herbivores happily coexisted
with grasses etc. Grazing by herbivores was beneficial to grasses.
Both in terms of manuring and promoting growth by constant pruning.
Carnivores preyed on herbivores. Bacteria and fungi consumed dead
carnivores. The bacteria from rotten carnivores and herbivores *
fixed atmospheric nitrogen in the soil which also fed the grasses.
A bit simplistic but there you go. All happily coexisting. Species
died out, of course they did. Nobody denies that.

But the fact that before man evolved, so many other species became so
unfortunate, unhappy, inconvenient ( "whatever") that they died, rather
undermines your theory of universal bliss. Disequilibrium happens.

....

No. What I'm saying is that all the ones that were living were
co-existing at the time, and all the ones that were co-existing
were alive at the time.

quote

6.4311 Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience
death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration
but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in
the present. Our life has no end in just the way in which our visual
field has no limits.
quote

L.Wittgenstein Tractatus L.P. p.72 trans Pears & McGuinness


What goes for humans goes for all other forms of life as well. They
never lived to experience a state of disequilibrium.

....


....

Many became extinct (for
various reasons) long before man came on the scene; we only know of
their existence from fossilised remains.

....

Indeed. But any life forms which did exist, we can assume must
have co-existed in a state of equilibrium with some other life
forms. Be they bacteria, viruses, trilobites, insects, plants,
animals etc. Or maybe only different strains of bacteria. All
quite happily co-existing. La de da!

Are you saying they were posh, as well as blissfully happy?

quote

Annie Hall's dialogue is among the most memorable facets of this
jewel of a film. for instance (you will have to imagine how Keaton
stretched out the syllables):

Alvy: I think you're pretty lucky I came along

Annie: Oh, really? Well, la di da, laa di da

quote

http://triviana.com/film/afilm/annhall.htm

Annie Hall and Wittgenstein in one post. Top that McLaren.

....



* carrion

Ah, yes..let's never forget about *carrion, another whiffy notion that
bit the dust and fell apart some while back.

:~}

Janet

....

I lean towards "came crashing down around your ears" myself, but there
you go.


michael adams

....

Badgers catch bovine tuberculosis off cows, surely it is the cows not the badgers who should be culled.

Humans catch various diseases off other humans, sometimes with a mosquito or tick acting as intermediate carrier. Surely it is the humans who should be culled.

For some sentimental reason I don't like this line of argument any more.