Last week I spent two half days, and some time in a bar in between, with a bunch of RSPB site managers (or wardens as we used to call them!) talking about fox control.
We have over 200 nature reserves and we cull foxes on about 20 of them, so, as written before, we use fox control as a management option but not as a standard management prescription. Our main reason for fox control is where we have vulnerable populations of breeding waders such as lapwing, redshank and snipe and where we believe that foxes are making a big difference to their numbers or breeding success.
But getting out the rifle is not the only option - non-lethal methods may be more effective, cheaper and more acceptable to the public or to our staff. One option is fencing, and the results of some trials are described in the RSPB Reserves review for 2010 (see pages 34-35 of the document or pages 36-37 of the pdf). A couple of different fence types have been tested but both have electric strands. One advantage of fences is that, as well as foxes which we know can be important predators of waders nests, they also exclude badgers which are more occasional nest predators. Another advantage is that you aren't up late at night with a reifle trying to get a clean shot at a wary animal.
The results are encouraging but we are a cautious bunch so we aren't claiming anything yet. I can't see fences being very useful in the uplands but in lowland areas they may have a part to play. We'll see.
I live in the countryside and hardly ever see a fox. Most of my recent sightings have been in London on early mornings where just as the foxes seem very nonchalant about people, most Londoners seem very relaxed about urban foxes. I get quite excited when I see a fox - they are lovely animals. But I don't, personally, have any problem about a bit of fox control to protect birds of conservation importance.
But we, the RSPB, do take a particularly strict line on predator control on our own land. We don't use snares. We don't use dogs to flush foxes underground or above ground. And we try very hard not to shoot at times when we might kill lactating vixens with young cubs underground. Those constraints don't make fox control very easy compared with the job a gamekeeper can do.
Overall, over the last few years, (2005-2009, see the Reserves Review) lapwings and redshanks have increased in numbers on our nature reserves (and that isn't because we've added more land - it's true of the land we started with in 2005) so unless lots of waders flock into our reserves every year (which is just possible) we can't be doing too much wrong. But lapwing and redshank numbers fell a bit this year (2010) so there's nothing to be complacent about.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
I have just seen a photo of the new Rainham anti-predator fence (in the Marsh Matters newsletter). It looks OK!
Quote Gert "I just hope they find a vaccine for cattle soon as I don't think the general public (and I certainly don't) has the stomach for the wholesale extermination of Badgers."
If and when they find a vaccine they would then have to change EU Law, because it is currently illegal to vaccinate cattle against TB, as it then makes testing impossible, which renders most of the control and eradication measure useless. BTW, 5 years is the latest estimate for a vaccine, but which time all the UK will have bTB if other measures aren't taken.
Apologies - one last thing:-
And Pro Tim strangely dismisses a report by the then Government Chief Scientific Advisor Sir David King with just a reference to its existence rather than explain its content and conclusions – that a badger cull was indeed necessary and the only viable solution – and this is a report that Pro Tim - as an ECOLOGIST- personally contributed to as a designated expert! The inclusion of these details would have very well illustrated the dilemma that exists – but no – nothing! Why?
If Pro Tim had outlined the PCR science and detailed its associated benefits along with the disastrous RBCT criticisms and the content of both Sir David King’s and Prof Godfray’s heavily critical reports coupled with the ‘acidic’ Veterinary Science reports I have no doubts that Pro Tim would have achieved ‘persona non grata’ status overnight and been drummed out of the “Brownies” and jeopardised his career under the previous political regime that was New Labour where ‘he who paid the piper called the tune’!
I just hope they find a vaccine for cattle soon as I don't think the general public (and I certainly don't) has the stomach for the wholesale extermination of Badgers.
Prof Tim Roper writes (supporting my view) that:-
• “if TB is self-sustaining in badgers (virtually certain) and if the percentage of new cattle infections attributable to badgers exceeds 50% (which it does significantly), then it seems self-evident that some kind of action against the wildlife reservoir will be necessary, at least in the hot-spot areas”
His scientific ‘summaries’ on this subject are not always those of an independent scientific thinker, reviewer or commentator; to a very large extent – they replicate the ‘thinking’ of the then / current(?) DEFRA management team’s mindset as installed and groomed by the previous New Labour regime.
Indeed Pro Tim ‘bottles’ his conclusion by saying “the scientific case against isolated, one off, spatially restricted, culls of limited duration, such as were carried out in the RBCT is very strong” ie don’t choose a 4 foot, blind, one-armed, alcoholic Cuban to be the England goal keeper !!!
Precisely Gert - N-O-B-O-D-Y IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WANTS TO PROCEED ALONG THE RBCT ROUTE
go visit the www.bovinetb.blogspot.com home page - look at the graph halfway down - culling works and the harsher the culling methodology the greater the effectiveness - the politically-driven constraints imposed by New Labour and admitted by Pro Bourne (ISG) made the RBCT no basis to formulate a strategy to eliminate bTB
Pro Tim sadly fails his audience - he is only reviewing so-called scientific publications - he virtually ignores PCR technology for example - like New Labour - his most recent reference is 2004 anf then he only refers to rather than outline its benefits etc etc
The original publication is better !!
And before everybody thinks that vaccination is the way forward the bTB BLOG states
"So far from that gallopingly wild headline, adopted by all and sundry - and Moonbat - of a 74 per cent reduction in TB of the 800 wild vaccinated badger trial group, the conclusion on p 9 of the Appendix, opines that
"it is not possible to to estimate efficacy of BCG vaccination, in this study"