Flaming squirrels!!!!! (2 Viewers)

[affe22]

Hey, that sounds familiar ...ah yes i remember, just like residents of the US that are of European ancestry :-O

Well, whatever you want to tell yourself so you can feel good when the reds are extinct. Unlike the grays, people moved to the US by natural means. I guess we should all move back into the fertile valley area that our species originated cause I'm pretty sure humans didn't start out living in Lithuania. Sorry to say, I value human life over animal life to a point. Weak argument my friend, weak argument.

 

[medinabrit]

i wonder what europe would be like if the 250.million us citizens of euro ancestry were to move back . i dare say there wouldnt b e enough land left for any animals or birds let alone squirrels .by the way we had i believe more than 35000 deer car related accidents in ohio alone last year.how many in lithuania.
brian.
ps, i have a friend here whos attic was running alive with grey squirrels .they completely destroyed all the insulation in his house.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Well, whatever you want to tell yourself so you can feel good when the reds are extinct. Unlike the grays, people moved to the US by natural means. I guess we should all move back into the fertile valley area that our species originated cause I'm pretty sure humans didn't start out living in Lithuania. Sorry to say, I value human life over animal life to a point. Weak argument my friend, weak argument.

Who's arguing? Next time I 'll put a bigger smiley to ensure you see it

PS. to above, whites of European ancestry, i.e. not native Americans, didn't they come by ship? Pretty sure you are right about Lithuania not being the cradle of humanity - it is amazing how much I learn on this forum about my settled land

By the way, I have not argued against a reduction in Grey Squirrels at all in this thread - I have, however, argued against the shooting of Grey Squirrels in uncoordinated ad hoc styles as it will not do anything to address the Red Squirrel issue ...if there is a wish to seriously reduce Grey Squirrels, a national campaign is required that has responsible control and methodology, not a few isolated people taking potshots.

 

[tiomet]

The majority of members have probably got the good sense not to become involved on a thread like this one!!!!!. Roger


Indeed Roger! I only realised what I had got myself into when it was too late!

Geez I wish I was a bit faster sometimes.

Nay, it is good to get involved but it is time perhaps to step back because new posts are simply repeating old ones now... long threads get circular. See you on another thread!

 

[Nicola3]

Tracy,

You say a single shot, if aimed properly, can kill a squirrel outright. And what if it doesn't? I'm afraid this is very often not the case and consequently leads to the injured animal enduring a lengthy and painful death.

It is not up to self-righteous individuals to take it upon themselves to take pot-shots at certain species.

As stated by Jos, if there is a wish to seriously reduce grey squirrel numbers then a national campaign is required involving a method of 'RESPONSIBLE' control by a skilled and professional body. Not a collective of mindless individuals taking pot-shots.

The mentality of the first thread is sadly all too apparent, when such wording as 'pumping full of lead' is used.

 

[birdman]

Tracy,

You say a single shot, if aimed properly, can kill a squirrel outright. And what if it doesn't? I'm afraid this is very often not the case and consequently leads to the injured animal enduring a lengthy and painful death.

It is not up so self-righteous individuals to take it upon themselves to take pot-shots at certain species.

As stated by Jos, if there is a wish to seriously reduce grey squirrel numbers then a national campaign is required involving a method of 'RESPONSIBLE' control by a skilled and professional body. Not a collective of mindless individuals taking pot-shots.

The mentality of the first thread is sadly all too apparent, when such wording as 'pumping full of lead' is used.

Agree 100%!!!

For the record, I am a meat-eater, a skin wearer, I have no problem with fur wearing and I am generally in favour of hunting - and I will gladly debate these points with anyone in an appropriate thread.

What I am anti is ANTI-CRUELTY!!!

A National policy of culling I would whole-heartedly support. Some guy with a shot gun taking pot-shots in his yard, is both pointless and abhorrent.

I should say, and I apologise if I offend any of our American members, do remember that there is an entirely different philosophy on gun ownership here in the UK.

We do not have, and the vast majority of us do not want the RIGHT to own firearms.

And I am sorry, but hand in hand with your right to own firearms, some (not all I'm sure) seem to perceive an equal right to blast everything that invades their space.

(Comments such as the "natural" (!!!???) migration of European settlers to the New World are both irrelevant and unhelpful... and seem to conveniently omit any reference to the impact on a land already populated by a rich variety of fauna and flora as well as a native human population.

And whilst we are on irrelevences, language scholars believe Lithuanian to be the language most closely representative of "proto-indoeuropean", and from this deduce that, whilst hardly the cradle of humanity, there was a very ancient settling in those lands by human populations.)

 

[turkish van]

The majority of members have probably got the good sense not to become involved on a thread like this one!!!!!. Roger


Indeed Roger! I only realised what I had got myself into when it was too late!

Geez I wish I was a bit faster sometimes.

Nay, it is good to get involved but it is time perhaps to step back because new posts are simply repeating old ones now... long threads get circular. See you on another thread!

Yeh you're right. I am quite glad I did get involved, you can't just stand back and watch if you feel strongly about something.

And I think we added something, even if some choose not to listen!! :t:

:scribe: :king: :eat: o :bounce:

 

[birdman]

What I am anti is ANTI-CRUELTY!!!

Of course, what I mean is "What I am, is anti-cruelty".

(D'oh!!!)

 

[saluki]

I should say, and I apologise if I offend any of our American members, do remember that there is an entirely different philosophy on gun ownership here in the UK.

We do not have, and the vast majority of us do not want the RIGHT to own firearms.

And I am sorry, but hand in hand with your right to own firearms, some (not all I'm sure) seem to perceive an equal right to blast everything that invades their space.

Bit harsh Birdman! Our friends in the US don't have the same reputation as some of our southern European neighbours for blasting anything that moves out of the sky - in fact I think we should adopt some of the US's regulations, such as bag limits on wildfowl, in the UK. Whereas in the US a wildfowler will be limited to, say, six duck on a morning flight, there's nothing to stop a 'fowler shooting 60 in the UK!

Organisations such as 'Ducks Unlimited' do a lot of conservation work too.

saluki

 

[birdman]

Bit harsh Birdman! Our friends in the US don't have the same reputation as some of our southern European neighbours for blasting anything that moves out of the sky - in fact I think we should adopt some of the US's regulations, such as bag limits on wildfowl, in the UK. Whereas in the US a wildfowler will be limited to, say, six duck on a morning flight, there's nothing to stop a 'fowler shooting 60 in the UK!

Organisations such as 'Ducks Unlimited' do a lot of conservation work too.

saluki

I'll respond to your post here, saluki, although I admit we are in danger of straying from the topic.

I won't disagree with your opinion on US fowling (= hunting in general?) regulations, and I do agree that many hunting organisations worldwide do also have responsible conversation policies.

My point - perhaps harsh, but I think fair - was not to say that US citizens are any "better" or "worse" than ourselves or our Mainland European neighbours, rather that some of the opinions from across the Big Pond may well be given based on a totally different context - i.e. that of gun ownership and a general (if somewhat vague) role of the gun in the defence of property being somewhat more taken for granted over there than over here.

Also, the reason I focussed specifically on the US, is that the vast majority of non-Britsh replies were from US members, rather than other Europeans.

 

[hil5]

I think some of you would be surprised at the culling the WWT and RSPB do on their reserves.

Black -headed gulls destroy avocet eggs and nestlings - control is used

Crows are also controlled at some sites.

I also believe squirrels and rats are controlled, but that evidence is from a purely observational point of view.

Deer may be the next target.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/action/lifeline.asp

They do not advertise these policies obviously.

The RSPB also support the hedgehog cull on the island of Uist (hedgehog eat eggs/nestlings of ground nesting birds) by Uist Wader Project (UWP) . The hedgehog preservation society agrees hogs shouldn't be there. The society has offered to relocate the hogs to areas on the mainland where there are few ground nesting birds are. UWP refused to do this or cooperate.

http://www.britishhedgehogs.org.uk/Uist.htm

 

[Edward woodwood]

. It does not follow that if you eat bacon at breakfast you have to be bloodthirsty and murderous.

no, someone else does the dirty work

who do you blame for killing? the soldiers who do it or the people who send them?

i do eat meat occasionally, I wish i didn't but i'm human and weak willed. I don't make excuses for it and see it for what it is. Squirrel, cow, chicken it's all the same to the animal.

The biological/ecological arguments for culling have been well made. Objections are purely on 'moral' grounds and are usually more than a little confused

Tim

 

[tiomet]

It does not follow that if you eat bacon at breakfast you have to be bloodthirsty and murderous.

no, someone else does the dirty work

who do you blame for killing? the soldiers who do it or the people who send them?

Not quite sure how the arguments are actually relevent.

My assertion is that people who are meat eaters are as entitled to argue from a standpoint of right to life as anyone else. I think if you carry your argument to its natural conclusion you start on the slippery slope to things like - if you are a Christian you have to be a vegetarian and never join the armed forces. Clearly this is not the case and before you question the validity of it I have not offered any opinion on it and do not need to prove any moral issue surrounding it.

The question on soldiers is inflammatory and this is not the thread for it. Maybe you should start that on Ruffled Feathers? I choose not to answer it and feel no compulsion to prove my morality in relation to it. At least not here and not at this time.

I think there is no confusion on the right to life, or the arguments in support of it, what is puzzling is that you are lobbing in questions and making statements designed to confuse the essence of this thread.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Not quite sure how the arguments are actually relevent.

My assertion is that people who are meat eaters are as entitled to argue from a standpoint of right to life as anyone else. I think if you carry your argument to its natural conclusion you start on the slippery slope to things like - if you are a Christian you have to be a vegetarian and never join the armed forces. Clearly this is not the case and before you question the validity of it I have not offered any opinion on it and do not need to prove any moral issue surrounding it.

The question on soldiers is inflammatory and this is not the thread for it. Maybe you should start that on Ruffled Feathers? I choose not to answer it and feel no compulsion to prove my morality in relation to it. At least not here and not at this time.

I think there is no confusion on the right to life, or the arguments in support of it, what is puzzling is that you are lobbing in questions and making statements designed to confuse the essence of this thread.

just pointing out the gaping holes in our moral philosophies - what we will accept and justify, and what we wont - there's often no logic underpinning them. If we acknowledge thes it makes our random affiliation to causes understandable

the argument was an 'analogy'

Tim

 

[Earwig]

Hi

I think this is a bit extreme. We have a pheasant called Rocky who chases off our squirrels. Would you like to borrow him?

 

[showaddy]

I have read most of this thread right through, but christmas will soon be here and my kids are growing up, so I skimmed over pages 5 and 6.

So please forgive me if I am duplicating any previous post.

I want to ask the numerous people who say in the thread "There is no point in shooting them, as soon as you remove one another one will take its place"

-- how do you know? Have you tried?

I'm not trying to be smart here - I really want to know what is your evidence for this. If the guy who wants to shoot them were to remove every squirrel that visited his garden, let us say he shoots one each day, (and for the sake of an unfettered discussion let us assume that he traps them in a cage trap then shoots them so he is certain of a quick kill, safety for any humans nearby, and clean disposal of the body) - for how long would they be replaced by others? or how soon would it be before he could stop shooting - and for how long would the respite last?

I'm not after a lot of emotive hot air, I really would like to know.

Does anyone have any substantiated answers? Or sensibly educated guesses?

Thank you for your time.

 

[Boy George]

Eradicate! Eradicate!

Get a Squirrel Trap - catch your squirrel - drop complete trap into water butt (gets easier the more you do) - walk away - come back an hour later - lift out trap - dispose of contents - reset trap. Result - lowered blood pressure (your's and the squirrel's) happier birds/trees/bank manager (less expendite on feeders, bird food and trees).

And will those misty eyed "squirrel lovers" get real.

Adrian

 

[Andy Bright]

We have now merged the two squirrel threads into one. Probably a bit of a mess now, but there you go... 2 identical threads going along at the same time in the same forum is a bit silly.

 

[London Birder]

I want to ask the numerous people who say in the thread "There is no point in shooting them, as soon as you remove one another one will take its place"

-- how do you know? Have you tried?

I'm not trying to be smart here - I really want to know what is your evidence for this. If the guy who wants to shoot them were to remove every squirrel that visited his garden, let us say he shoots one each day, (and for the sake of an unfettered discussion let us assume that he traps them in a cage trap then shoots them so he is certain of a quick kill, safety for any humans nearby, and clean disposal of the body) - for how long would they be replaced by others? or how soon would it be before he could stop shooting - and for how long would the respite last?

I'm not after a lot of emotive hot air, I really would like to know.

Does anyone have any substantiated answers? Or sensibly educated guesses?

Thank you for your time.

think I was the first to say that ... last thing I shot was the back of my brother's legs with a spud gun many eons ago ~ but, I have witnessed squirrels (Greys obviously) being 'eradicated' with the use of a .22 on numerous occasions and to date it has had no noticable impact whatsoever, they just keep a' comin' ... and this has been going on at this one particular site for over two years (seems pretty futile really, a view I've expressed to the 'marksman' on more than one occasion and one which he pretty much accepts!) ... further, although he always uses a .22, I would say that non-fatal shots are as high as c.15% (though no claims for his marksmanship); no stats to back this up however, just my own eyes ... my personal view is that squirrels needs a national co-ordinated initiative (if indeed agreement is ever reached on an eradication programme) and although 'controlling' in one's own garden may (or may not) have the desired result, the bigger issue remains ...

 

[Mary Evelyn]

I have read most of this thread right through, but christmas will soon be here and my kids are growing up, so I skimmed over pages 5 and 6.

So please forgive me if I am duplicating any previous post.

I want to ask the numerous people who say in the thread "There is no point in shooting them, as soon as you remove one another one will take its place"

-- how do you know? Have you tried?

I'm not trying to be smart here - I really want to know what is your evidence for this. If the guy who wants to shoot them were to remove every squirrel that visited his garden, let us say he shoots one each day, (and for the sake of an unfettered discussion let us assume that he traps them in a cage trap then shoots them so he is certain of a quick kill, safety for any humans nearby, and clean disposal of the body) - for how long would they be replaced by others? or how soon would it be before he could stop shooting - and for how long would the respite last?

I'm not after a lot of emotive hot air, I really would like to know.

Does anyone have any substantiated answers? Or sensibly educated guesses?

Thank you for your time.

They tried to reduce the numbers of grey squirrels in the 60's by killing them....It didn't work.....Fact !!

You are not after emotive hot air ..................... 8-P 8-P 8-P
I suggest you do your own homework and check out the sources readily available on the internet........... :gn: