Category: Environment

Sterilising Grey Squirrels, a nonsensical idea.

All squirrels have similar habits and behaviours. Wiping out the greys and increasing the population of reds will only make the reds pests. Contraception is a nonsense approach.

Sterilising grey squirrels seems extreme.

The plan of sterilising most or all grey squirrels in the U.K. to save the red squirrel from extinction seems extreme and unworkable. But it has recently been greeted with glee by conservationists, foresters, the news media and especially by everybody who thinks they are just rats with bushy tails. Many are wishing for total eradication, but can we be realistic for a moment.

Sadly, there are estimates of only 150,000 red squirrels surviving in the U.K. mainly in Scotland compared with 2.7 million greys marauding as aliens across the rest of the country destroying our forests, causing climate change, attacking and passing on disease to the reds and a whole list of other indiscretions. Meanwhile the angelic reds can do no wrong.

Surely a squirrel is a squirrel is a squirrel.

But surely a squirrel is a squirrel is a squirrel the world over and all species have similar eating and behavioural habits. The reason reds do such little damage in the UK is that they are only 150,000 of them, so what if we tilt the balance the other way and have 2.7 million reds. What happens then? I suspect we would soon target them as the number one villain and cull them. Red squirrels are known to strip bark, destroy trees, etc, etc. and in large numbers will be just as destructive at debarking trees, invading your loft space, eating birds eggs and all the other complaints we have against greys.

The logistics seem overwhelming

Meanwhile the researchers and scientists  who have come up with this squirrel contraceptive idea have spent over 4 years of a 5 year research project developing this and hope to put a plan in place by 2024. It is described as an innovative idea which will provide an effective, less labour intensive method for managing or eradicating greys.

Sounds wonderful, but seriously, is it less labour intensive. How much money and manpower will it take to replenish and check these feeders and what about the costs of manufacturing them, supplying, servicing and positioning them. Probably more than the cost of the damage they allegedly cause.

If those involved seriously think they will be able to make inroads into the number of greys, which they admit are prolific breeders, it will entail an astronomical amount of feeders. The logistics would appear to be impossible.

Grey squirrels sterilising
Many people find them entertaining and like having grey squirrels around.

Still welfare issues

Yes, its better than shooting, trapping and poisoning them but the use of sterilising could involve mental and physiological suffering by them not being able to nuture young. There are other alternatives already in use to curb wildlife. Is it time to just let nature takes its course or allow some disorder in nature and in this case spend the money on establishing more breeding and release programmes.

I personally feel it would be money better spent sterilising urban rats considering the health and hygiene risks they pose. Anyone out there researching that?

Escobar’s Hippos: the ultimate alien invasive species.
It is killing whatever term you choose to call it.

Pope Francis laments trend of substituting children for pets.

Pope Francis’s recent lament against substituting children for pets irritated and offended many people, but were his words taken out of context?

Pope Francis recently lamented the increasing modern trend of substituting children for pets. He declared at a general audience at the Vatican that not having children is “selfish and diminishes us and takes away our humanity”. He also stated that “many couples do not have children because they do not want to, or they have just one — but they have two dogs, two cats. Yes, dogs and cats take the place of children.”

The Vatican defended him, stating his oration was taken out of context. Cindy Wooden of the Catholic News Service believed his words concerning people who did not want children was “what stuck in many people’s craw.”

The Pope assumes people know him and the context of his words. When they don’t, hackles are raised as in the case of his view on couples having pampered pets instead of children. The nervous laughter in the Vatican audience hall on Jan. 5 should have tipped him off that he was heading for a mishap.

Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service January 11 2022.

Animal lovers who obviously did not know him, construed his words as being anti petkeeping and an accusation of selfishness on the part of those not wishing either to have children or unfortunately not able to. This caused outrage and offence to a great number of people.

Every media outlet across the world picked up on the story and it was front page news and filled social media sites. Pet owners and celebrities like Ricky Gervais were queuing up to disparage it.

Animal rightists may have welcomed his comments.

His words may have surprised and confused many people considering he is the first Pope to take his name from St Francis of Assisi patron saint of animals, and is renowned for his love of animals and their rights. He was even voted by the leading animal rights organisation People’s Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in 2015 as their Person of the Year for his message of kindness to animals.

Ironically, PETA of course, probably welcomed his words and were supportive of his viewpoint as the organisation is against the keeping of all pets, but for differing reasons.

Substituting children for pets causes outcry.

In this era of overpopulation of the planet which causes so many problems for world society, the environment and climate change, it was ill advised for the Pope to make such comments as he was on a hiding to nothing. The subject was preordained to upset a lot of people whether believers or not.

It was a bit of an own goal and opened the Vatican to cries of hypocrisy in light of all the recent child abuse allegations and the fact that priests do not have children. It also disregarded the solace, joy and companionship which pets bring to the lives of the old, sick, lonely and depressed and childless couples. Also, the benefits pets provide for the social development of children.

Rule over every living thing and multiply.

But it shouldn’t come as a surprise as in general religion throughout history has not been a great fan of animals. It has always been preached that humans take precedence over any considerations of the animals. Most religions give humans “dominion” over all living creatures with some Christian faiths going as far as to tell their followers to “rule over every living thing, multiply and fill the earth and subdue it”. 

It might be beneficial for the church if the Pope’s advisors warn him that he upsets the world’s pet lovers at his peril.

What has religion ever done for animals.