Original PaulE
Well-known member

I'm not clear from your post who you hold a brief for, but from what I've read over the last thirty years, Red Squirrels before Grey Squirrels brought their transatlantic pox to annihilate them had a significant and similar effect on forestry and its inhabitants, to the point that they held the "vermin" status you now attribute to Grey Squirrels. The significant difference between the two as you correctly suggest is that Grey Squirrels are an invasive alien deserving of removal by the shortest means, leaving the niche completely vacant for the restoration of the original "vermin": the underlying truth however is that in an ecosystem not being constantly robbed of its essential predators there are no vermin, just a set of organisms interacting in overall long-term balance.
Hence, of course, my comment on the game "management" interests. Fish being taken - shoot herons and cormorants. Pheasants (invasive aliens that are now known to be responsible for declines in native reptiles) being taken: shoot Buzzards and anything with fangs and four feet. Grouse being taken: shoot all raptors and of course all mammalian predators. Lord knows its not so long since this extended to man-traps for poachers, which says it all about the kind of people who hunt shoot and fish.
It has been demonstrated that a good part of the answer to Grey Squirrels ought to be Pine Martens at their proper range and density. It is known that a good part of the answer to corvids is a natural range and density of Goshawks. It is a no-brainer that the answer to the over-population of deer is lynx and wolf taking a proper toll and also exerting the effect of keeping deer moving so that e.g. riparian woodland can regenerate instead of being constantly hammered by deer invulnerable to predation (and causing downstream flooding and injury to people who do not enjoy the beneficial end of the feudal landlord system still extant). All of these things are opposed by game management interests many of whom flout the law in order to promote their own ignorant self-interests and by the law of unintended consequences distort the ecosystem further.
Conservation - not game management - is not always about being nice to animals or even excluding killing, and I along with many others recognise that fully. But the interests that lay waste to elements of our ecosystem selectively for their own, distorted view of the countryside are the ones that most urgently need controlling and I now have a neutral view on whether that should be by effective legislation and enforcement or the sort of management that they themselves prefer to mete out.
John
Agree completely