Everyone claims they use evidence-based decision-making. But many use science as drunks use lamp-posts - more for support than illumination!
I couldn't help noticing a piece on the ShootingUK website recently. It covered the research which looked at the potential impacts of grey squirrels on songbird populations covered earlier in this blog on 8 January. The research by the BTO couldn't find convincing impacts of grey squirrels, at a population level, on songbird populations. However, Nick Forde, a trustee of Songbird Survival, doesn't appear to believe the results.
According to ShootingUK, Mr Forde said 'We regard correlative analyses of observational datasets with caution. In our view, using the Breeding Bird Survey data to examine a complex problem like predation is using a rather blunt instrument. It is an escapable fact that the grey squirrel is a highly invasive non-native predator. One should consider that it is probably in the interests of major conservation organisations not to find a problem with grey squirrels or otherwise they would have to do something about it.'.
Well that's very interesting. The research wasn't done by a major conservation organisation - it was done by the BTO - a highly respected research organisation. But if one of the major conservation organisations in Mr Forde's mind is the RSPB (which also does highly respected research by the way!) then he ought to get up to date with our views on grey squirrels - we regard them as a big conservation problem because of the threat they pose to the remaining native red squirrel populations (even if they aren't a big factor in woodland bird declines). But I get the impression that Mr Forde isn't too bothered about the science, he is keen to criticise grey squirrels and 'major conservation organisations'
But Mr Forde's comments become really quite intriguing when you learn that Songbird Survival commissioned the BTO to do analyses of the impacts of various predators on a range of songbird species (we know because some of the datasets are joint BTO and RSPB datasets and so we gave permission for this use - and also because Mr Forde and others have mentioned it to us) and those analyses will appear in due course. They are correlative analyses of observational datasets too. Could it be that Mr Forde doesn't like the results that he has paid for? Is he even now attempting to distance himself from the conclusions?
And Shooting Times currently has an online poll on the subject of grey squirrels - let's see how science-friendly is their readership?
The RSPB invests a lot of our resources into science. We think that basing actions on a sound understanding of the natural world is a good thing to do. Have a look at the science that the RSPB carries out by clicking here.
It si a strange and frightening tradition of the British countryside that even where there are a wide range of causes of a problem killing wildlife always seems to be the first option for many (usually vociferous) proponents - and it usually has little to do with whether that killing will actually affect the population or the damage being done. There's no question that Grey Squirrels are a menance and noone can do anything other than regret the day they were introduced BUT for birds and English wwodlands lack of management, problems on their wintering grounds and deer grazing are all far, far bigger problems than Grey Squirrels.
And advocating eradication - which would be great if achieveable - runs up against a small, sucessful introduced mammal - and the worldwide record of eradication of species like that is dismal - look at Australia and rabbits. Killing can work if really concentrated and where the habitat for Grey's is poor - which is why it is worth really going for it to protect Red squirrel reserves. But for much of the country Grey Squirrels are a lazy diversion from the hard & difficult work of getting native woodlands back into positive management, controlling the deer - and even seeing what is happening on the wintering grounds of Trans-Saharan migrants.
Well for once I am all for a cull of Greys on the basis we save the reds and give them a chance to expand and for sure would be a small benefit to woodland as without doubt Greys damage trees.For sure it has been well proved a concerted cull of Greys will allow Reds to rapidly grow in number and so it follows if a area could be cleared of Greys and repopulated with smallish numbers of Reds we could at least make a start instead of all saying it is unworkable,at least lets give it a go.