Is there anything more stupid than the government’s plan to kill grey squirrels?
I ask not because I believe –
as Animal Aid does – that grey squirrels are harmless. Far from it: they have eliminated red squirrels from most of Britain since their introduction by Victorian landowners, and are now doing the same thing in parts of the continent. By destroying young trees, they also make the establishment of new woodland almost impossible in many places. As someone who believes there should be many more trees in this country, I see that as a problem. A big one.
No, I oppose the cull for two reasons. The first is that it’s a total waste of time and money. Here’s what scientists who have studied such programmes
have to say:
“To date, there has been no successful method developed in the long-term control (nor indeed the eradication) of grey squirrel populations ... a recovery in numbers was found to take place within 10 weeks of intensive culling programs.”
You pour the money in and it pours out the other side. The government’s plan to sponsor an “eradication programme” to the tune of
£100 per hectare per year is futile; though it will have the effect of transferring even more public money to rural landowners.
I doubt you’ll be surprised to hear that the idea was approved by the former environment secretary Owen Paterson, whose primary mission in office appears to have been showering his chums with gold, while ruthlessly cutting any spending that might have delivered wider benefits. This was the man, remember, who
almost doubled the subsidy for grouse moors.
My second reason for opposing the cull is that there is another way of dealing with grey squirrels, which requires hardly any expense, indeed hardly any human intervention at all. Unlike trapping, shooting or poisoning, it works. It is happening with extreme prejudice in Ireland at the moment.
There is a scientific term for this method. Pine martens.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-squirrels-without-firing-a-shot-pine-martens