Red squirrel conservation efforts boosted

Dusty87

Srameen, how much of a threat do they pose to songbirds. Iv read in a few magazines that they rob eggs and sometimes young. I think the english birdwatch crowd (RSBP, RSPB cant think of correct one) carried out a study agreeing wit that.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Gray squirrels eat a range of foods such as tree bark (doing huge damage in places), many types of seeds and acorns, walnuts, and other nuts, and some types of fungi found in the woods.

When its usual food source is scarce (usually in Summer) they have been known to prey upon insects, frogs, small rodents, including other squirrels, and small birds, their eggs and young.

However, the Red is no saint in this regard. The Red Squirrel eats mostly the seeds of trees, (neatly stripping conifer cones to get at the seeds within) fungi, nuts (especially Hazelnuts Beech and Chestnuts), berries, some young shoots, but bird eggs have also been known to be taken.

recedite

Kali Sparse Waiter wrote: »

The Red is a Native species. Re-introduction does not eliminate Native status. Will our Golden Eagles never be native Irish birds in your view? Will the Red Kiles (hopefully) in years to come still be British in your eyes? Re-introduction of a species lost due to human interference is legitimate. To equate the American Eastern Grey Squirrel with the Eurasian Red Squirrel, on the alien species front, is taking a very narrow view of ecology.

As for the Grey Squirrel. It is clearly an alien species. It is detrimental to not only the Native Red Squirrel but our flora as well.

Taking an ultra wide view, the geology of the northwest of Ireland shows that it was once part of the land mass that is now North America. Over the aeons different species come and go, with or without human interference. Personally I don't care whether any of these animals are native or not, because I recognise the concept of "nativeness"to be an artificial construct.

recedite

Dusty87 wrote: »

how much of a threat do they pose to songbirds. Iv read in a few magazines that they rob eggs and sometimes young.

Pine martens are even better at that; perhaps we should kill them all?
But wait, many of the cute little songbirds are migrants, and even the ones that overwinter here nowadays most probably baled out for warmer climes during the Ice Age. So if the Pine Marten is more native, then it must be more saintly? Better protect them instead.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

recedite wrote: »

Taking an ultra wide view, the geology of the northwest of Ireland shows that it was once part of the land mass that is now North America. Personally I don't care whether any of these animals are native or not, because I recognise the concept of "nativeness"to be an artificial construct.

It's impossible to have a decent discussion if someone is being deliberately facetious. Grey or Red Squirrel species did not exist when our continents were joined. Your dismissal of "Native" as being artificial is the type of attitude that has led to wildlife disasters in many parts of the world. To each his own but please look at the consequences of what you preach. I find it quite amazing that anybody with an interest in Nature (as a whole) does not accept the notion, or risk, of alien species be they Mammals, Shellfish, or Plants.

recedite wrote: »

Pine martens are even better at that; perhaps we should kill them all?
But wait, many of the cute little songbirds are migrants, and even the ones that overwinter here nowadays most probably baled out for warmer climes during the Ice Age. So if the Pine Marten is more native, then it must be more saintly? Better protect them instead.

You are twisting the simple question of whether Squirrels take eggs. Nobody said that was a reason to kill anything. You are also confusing migrant species with alien species.

Birdnuts

Kali Sparse Waiter wrote: »

It's impossible to have a decent discussion if someone is being deliberately facetious. Grey or Red Squirrel species did not exist when our continents were joined. Your dismissal of "Native" as being artificial is the type of attitude that has led to wildlife disasters in many parts of the world. To each his own but please look at the consequences of what you preach. I find it quite amazing that anybody with an interest in Nature (as a whole) does not accept the notion, or risk, of alien species be they Mammals, Shellfish, or Plants.


.

Indeed - the devastation inflicted by alien species on the flora and fauna of islands like New Zealand, Hawaii and Madasgar is proof enough of that:(

recedite

Birdnuts wrote: »

Indeed - the devastation inflicted by alien species on the flora and fauna of islands like New Zealand, Hawaii and Madasgar is proof enough of that:(

True, but there are two separate issues here.
1 Whether a species is native.
2 How well a species will fit into the existing ecosystem.

If you can't predict the answer to the second question, you shouldn't introduce.
The Normans introduced rabbits and pheasants here for food. Frogs were introduced here by students at TCD. No problems there.
White Egrets have recently introduced themselves; again no problems have arisen.

Dusty87

recedite wrote: »

Pine martens are even better at that; perhaps we should kill them all?
But wait, many of the cute little songbirds are migrants, and even the ones that overwinter here nowadays most probably baled out for warmer climes during the Ice Age. So if the Pine Marten is more native, then it must be more saintly? Better protect them instead.

I know pine martins do. I asked about Squirrels. I never mentioned killing anything, or anything about native or non native species.

Anyway, since you brought up pine martins, i think the fact that they are a lot more rarer than grey squirrels, they dont pose as much a threat.

Feargal as Luimneach

recedite wrote: »

True, but there are two separate issues here.
1 Whether a species is native.
2 How well a species will fit into the existing ecosystem.

If you can't predict the answer to the second question, you shouldn't introduce.
The Normans introduced rabbits and pheasants here for food. Frogs were introduced here by students at TCD. No problems there.
White Egrets have recently introduced themselves; again no problems have arisen.

Recent studies have shown that our frogs are infact a mixture of native fogs that survived the ice age and introduced frogs.
http://www.zsl.org/science/news/irish-frogs-may-have-survived-ice-age,568,NS.html

Pheasants are introduced and are not entirely harmless. On Tory island the population increase might be having some cause in the decrease on the numbers of corncrakes there.
White egrets, you mean Little egrets. (sorry for being pedantic)

LostCovey

recedite wrote: »

But wait, many of the cute little songbirds are migrants, and even the ones that overwinter here nowadays most probably baled out for warmer climes during the Ice Age. So if the Pine Marten is more native, then it must be more saintly? Better protect them instead.

Recedite,

This is nonsense, and if it is meant to be humorous, I don't get the joke.

What on earth were you trying to say?

LostCovey

recedite

LostCovey wrote: »

What on earth were you trying to say?

I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of persecuting an animal because of its perceived bad behaviour towards another species. There are people who kill magpies and squirrels because these are known to eat the eggs and nestlings of songbirds.
Other people take on the role of wildlife vigilantes where they set out to persecute a particular species because they see it as non-native. Again, who are we to judge?
I was also trying to point out that animals, like people, come and go throughout history, so in deciding who is native and who is not, where do you draw the line?

I would imagine that the various species of newts and the common toad that they have in Wales would fit in here very well alongside the frogs we have. Woodpeckers have recently flown over and Red Kites have been "reintroduced" from Wales, but the crawling creatures will take longer to get here. Adders would presumably fit in well, but would be more controversial, given the St Patrick legend, and their nasty bite.
I fully appreciate that in the case of the Grey Squirrel there are issues in relation to tree damage and displacement of the Reds.
However Reds are known to do better than Greys in coniferous woodland. And people in the USA do not seem too worried about losing all their trees to the dreaded Grey Squirrels.

LostCovey

recedite wrote: »

I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of persecuting an animal because of its perceived bad behaviour towards another species. There are people who kill magpies and squirrels because these are known to eat the eggs and nestlings of songbirds.
Other people take on the role of wildlife vigilantes where they set out to persecute a particular species because they see it as non-native. Again, who are we to judge?
I was also trying to point out that animals, like people, come and go throughout history, so in deciding who is native and who is not, where do you draw the line?

I would imagine that the various species of newts and the common toad that they have in Wales would fit in here very well alongside the frogs we have. Woodpeckers have recently flown over and Red Kites have been "reintroduced" from Wales, but the crawling creatures will take longer to get here. Adders would presumably fit in well, but would be more controversial, given the St Patrick legend, and their nasty bite.
I fully appreciate that in the case of the Grey Squirrel there are issues in relation to tree damage and displacement of the Reds.
However Reds are known to do better than Greys in coniferous woodland. And people in the USA do not seem too worried about losing all their trees to the dreaded Grey Squirrels.

OK I think I understand it now but I don't totally agree with it.

Having said that at least you are consistent. You are saying that the introduction of one species, even if historical, means it is legitimate to introduce any species?

I think in terms of global biodiversity this is a flawed approach. Having said that I admit there is a contradiction between supporting the introduction of Norwegian Eagles, as I do, but saying American Mink are vermin, as I do.

I plead guilty to inconsistency. I think however that there will be no impact on biodiversity from restoring a breeding population of Sea Eagles, but it is clear that the mink's arrival has had a disastrous impact.

I sometimes shoot magpies too (is that so wrong?). And as for feral cats..........

LostCovey

LostCovey

recedite

LostCovey wrote: »

You are saying that the introduction of one species, even if historical, means it is legitimate to introduce any species?

If they fit well into the existing ecosystem. The eagles and the egrets do fit in and enhance the environment, but the mink cause problems. Wolves and bears would also cause problems today, even though they could be classed as native. Elk might be interesting to introduce.
When you say historical, what point in history would you use as the cut off point for the arrival of a native species?

In regard to the magpies, you are a predator of magpies and cats just as they are of songbirds. Its not wrong as long as you eat your prey.

Kalahari

The main issue with introduced species is if there is a negative impact on other species. There's quite a few introduced species which do little harm and therefore aren't considered pests. The bank vole was introduced fairly recently but if anything they are just taking predation pressure off of other rodents so they don't really need to be controlled. But since the grey squirrel is undeniably the leading cause of red decline, then action has to be taken, especially since the problem was caused by humans. Take zebra mussels for example, also introduced by humans and they are likely going to cause local (if not countrywide) extinctions of dozens of fish and invert species, some of which are glacial relicts unique to this island and found nowhere else in the world. If people just shrugged and said they have as much right to be here as other species, then we'd be letting lake and river ecosystems change drastically and not fight the possibility of losing other species forever.

Nativeness is not artificial, it means species which came to be here in a natural manner, either by having ancestors which also lived here, and gave rise to generations which adapted to the changing landscapes to fit best into the niche, or by arriving naturally at a later stage, such as the woodpeckers in wicklow, and numerous bat species. Even though they arrived later, by finding their own way over and breeding successfully they technically then become native in their own right.

Persecution of non native species is indeed for us to judge, as it is our species who brought them here, completely unnaturally. It isn't fair at all to the individuals who are killed in attempting to right the wrong, but it is more harmful to do nothing. Reds do better than greys in coniferous woodland yes, but most of our woodlands are mixed, and less than 20% (I think ~14%) broadleaved trees give greys a big advantage over reds in mixed woodlands as well. It is really only in the big coniferous woodlands particularly in the west where reds stand a chance of keeping a large stable population.

As for bark stripping in the US, apparently they don't do it half as much over there. It may be that there is something missing from their natural diet here compared to their native american woodlands, or else the learned behaviour caught on more here. Who knows, but they can often damage more than a third of trees in forests here where they are in high densities so it is a big problem.

LostCovey

recedite wrote: »

In regard to the magpies, you are a predator of magpies and cats just as they are of songbirds. Its not wrong as long as you eat your prey.

Well that's bad news.

The Magpies and cats won't be too bad, with a good marinade, and a nice red from LIDL.

It's just the thought of eating all those mice, rats, bluebottles, fleas and lice that I have wastefully slaughtered over the years......

LostCovey

recedite

Kalahari wrote: »

Nativeness is not artificial, it means species which came to be here in a natural manner, either by having ancestors which also lived here, and gave rise to generations which adapted to the changing landscapes to fit best into the niche, or by arriving naturally at a later stage, such as the woodpeckers in wicklow, and numerous bat species. Even though they arrived later, by finding their own way over and breeding successfully they technically then become native in their own right.

Persecution of non native species is indeed for us to judge, as it is our species who brought them here, completely unnaturally.

I agree with most of what you say, but the argument in the quote above does not stand up. You are suggesting that woodpeckers that arrived last year are native, but rabbits and pheasants are not because they were introduced by man. The zebra mussels were not deliberately introduced; they got here by clinging to the underside of boats, and there are also Japanese crabs on the move in Europe using ships to get around. This is more or less the normal method for mammals and reptiles to colonise islands, except that usually they are thought to have clung onto floating logs or other storm debris.The technique is perfectly natural. Otherwise only flying creatures would live on islands.
So we get back to my point; the reason the Grey squirrels may arguably need to be controlled, but the introduced voles do not is because of their effect on the ecosystem. It's not because of their lack of nativeness.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

For for a point of correctness: the Woodpeckers you refer to (I take it you mean the Great Spotted Woodpecker) are not a new species to Ireland. This is a re-colonisation. These birds were plentiful centuries ago and since their loss there has since then been a glaring ecological niche to be filled in our woodlands. The environment is now right for them to nest. And again to be clear, we have had these birds evey Winter, only now are our woodlands ready to allow them nest and breed as they did in Ireland in the past.

Barname

donalglackin wrote: »

thats good to hear. ive often seen red squirrels in annes park i think theres only one or two there theres loads of grey squirrels though.

it is incumbent on good citizens to kill the Greys

recedite

Kali Sparse Waiter wrote: »

the Woodpeckers you refer to (I take it you mean the Great Spotted Woodpecker) are not a new species to Ireland. This is a re-colonisation.

OK fair point, lets take the Bank Vole then, or the Collared Dove, both of which arrived in the 1950's or 1960's I think.
Kali Sparse Waiter, what point in history would you judge to be the cut-off point for the arrival of a species for it to be a native?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I think you are just arguing for the sake of it. :rolleyes: (Spoiling for a fight as my late Mother used to say) The Collared Dove is not an introduced species. The Collared doves had been recorded in Hungary in the 1930s, later on they spread to Austria, Germany and France. They also migrated to Netherlands and Denmark. In 1952 they were seen in England and in 1959 even in Ireland. It was not an introduced species.
Please remember this thread is about Red and Grey Squirrels. Grey Squirrels are introduced.
We were trying to discuss conservation of Red Squirrels!

Kalahari

recedite wrote: »

The zebra mussels were not deliberately introduced; they got here by clinging to the underside of boats, and there are also Japanese crabs on the move in Europe using ships to get around. This is more or less the normal method for mammals and reptiles to colonise islands, except that usually they are thought to have clung onto floating logs or other storm debris.The technique is perfectly natural. Otherwise only flying creatures would live on islands.

Clinging to manmade boats is considered an accidental introduction, but nevertheless it is still man's fault, and a lot of introduced animals whether deliberately or accidentally introduced would have been extremely unlikely to make it here naturally from their very distant native lands. If we look at our fauna compared to Britain (and they are so close) we have very impoverished fauna, so even to cross that short distance is a challenge and usually only occurs by chance like floating debris as you say.

But anyways, yeah really it is mainly the impact that grey squirrels have that warrant a need for their control as opposed to simply not being native, but some would argue that just being introduced is enough to put a bounty on their heads. I'm somewhere in between, if a new species causes any harm or disrupts the natural balance of things then I think they should be controlled, but if they fit neatly into the ecosystem and don't upset the balance then I think in most cases live and let live. Unfortunately there is no arguing for leaving grey squirrels alone, and if I remember correctly if you were to accidentally catch/trap a grey squirrel it is actually a criminal offence to release it again unless you are conducting scientific research.

Obviously best case scenario is no human interference with species distribution at all. So many species have gone extinct in recent years due to introduced species so it would be really sad if ireland's red squirrel population went the same way.

recedite

Kali Sparse Waiter wrote: »

The Collared doves had been recorded in Hungary in the 1930s, later on they spread to Austria, Germany and France. They also migrated to Netherlands and Denmark. In 1952 they were seen in England and in 1959 even in Ireland. It was not an introduced species.

Ah, so now we have a third category; the "non-native but not introduced"
I'm still hoping for a definition of "native".:)

Kalahari wrote: »

If we look at our fauna compared to Britain (and they are so close) we have very impoverished fauna...

So many species have gone extinct in recent years due to introduced species so it would be really sad if ireland's red squirrel population went the same way.

Just to cheer you up, there is some anecdotal evidence that the sharp decline of the Red Squirrel has stopped, corresponding with an increase in its natural predator, the Pine Marten. The loser in this scenario seems to be the slower moving Grey Squirrel.
http://www.woodlandmammals.com/

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I know you may say you are genuinely asking a question with a desire for the answer but your reponses to date show great naiety when it comes to Ecosystems or environmental science. By the way, you started the whole Native/Non Native thing. We were taking in terms of introduced species.
There are many ways to express what a Native Species is, in laymans terms.

A species that normally lives and thrives in a particular ecosystem. This can include any species that developed with the surrounding habitat, and can be assisted by or affected by a new species.

It may be defined as indigenous or native to a given region or ecosystem if its presence in that region is the result of only natural resources, with no human intervention

Or you can have:not introduced and historically (post glacial period), or currently, occurs in a given ecosystem.

Human interference is one major facor. Clinging to a boat can be definded as human interference.

Now how abour getting back to Red Squirrel conservation?

recedite

Kali Sparse Waiter wrote: »

By the way, you started the whole Native/Non Native thing.

I didn't start it, I merely pointed out that it was an artificial division concocted by people, but I'll drop it now and we can agree to disagree:)

storm2811

Seen a red squirrel running across the road the other day for the first time in about 6 years,they used to be loads of them in the trees around here but they all disappeared after a while.
Seen another run over aswell,hope it wasn't the same one:(

Would love to see them come back again,they were lovely!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

recedite wrote: »

I didn't start it, I merely pointed out that it was an artificial division concocted by people, but I'll drop it now and we can agree to disagree:)

That's fine.It should have been dropped long ago as it was not what the rest of us were trying to discuss. I agree it should be dropped but I'll never agree to disagree on it, as the points I make are solid and sound. Facts are facts and you cannot argue with FACTS.

Connacht

Speaking of facts, what, if anything, is known, as a matter of fact, about how far west and north-west the grey squirrel has reached ?
It is commonly said that "the grey has not crossed the Shannon", but is this, in fact, true ? Anybody ?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

The River Shannon in the west and the River Bann in Northern Ireland have both slowed the grey squirrel’s spread but it has recently overcome both these natural barriers and is likely to continue its colonization of the entire island.

Blue850

I moved these photos in photobucket and lost the original links, so here they are again



2 reds come to the feeders in our back garden every day, there is a lot of hazel trees behind the fence. One was chased through the trees by a magpie a couple of weeks ago when it ventured too near its nest. They are amazing to watch as they jump from branch to branch.

It wasn't me!

Brilliant to see. I've seen two reds in the last eighteen months or so. Curiously enough, I've only been seeing them on the deciduous fringes of what was a commercial conifer forestry which has been felled. Before that, it was years since I'd seen one, only greys. Not seen as many greys since then either, and more in my garden than in that forestry. Could it be that the reduced habitat has shifted the advantage to the reds? It's fantastic to see in either case. The owner of the commercial forestry was never good about letting people shoot and trap in there, or I'd have done my bit towards reducing numbers, but that's not been on the cards.