The Voles are coming

[Jerra]

The question is: where do you draw the line. For example should we kill off insects which cause malaria? If so, how far should we then go to alter nature, given that generally today that is fairly easy. With anything where there is no clear dividing line, there will always be contentious issues. The one-sided blinkered view of many so-called naturalists and ecologists is not necessarily the right answer.

Wiping out any particular insect is next to impossible. It has been tried with anopheline mosquitoes and they are still around. Higher animals are easier (too easy) to wipe out.

 

If you consider the pyramid of life the nearer the top the more change wiping out that species causes. Humans should not deliberately make any species extinct because they can't know the knock on effect. There is no line to draw if man is to survive on this planet they need a healthy environment with all the systems working correctly. Our knowledge of wildlife is far from complete thousands of species are being discovered each year.

 

With regard to the one sided blinkered view of ecologists.naturalists the only people I know who consider them one sided or blinkered are those who find that their knowledge/ideas runs contrary to what they personally want.

 

I have never heard anyone describe say an engineer as one sided and blinkered. IMO because those professions never say anything which is going to be "uncomfortable" for the people listening. Ecologists become one sided and blinkered because they say we need todo things which many others find contrary to their interest - such as letting water voles colonise canals.

[Iain_S]

(snip)

If you consider the pyramid of life the nearer the top the more change wiping out that species causes.

(snip)

I'd have thought it was the other way round, with the exception of homo sapiens.

[Phil Ambrose]

Nicely said Jerra

 

Phil

[ditchcrawler]

For all you beer and vole lovers everywere:

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Marston-Moor-Brewery-Water-Vole-Pump-Clip-/281182438761?pt=UK_Collectables_Breweriana_SM&hash=item4177c78569#ht_215wt_1400

 

3.7% thats rats pee not vole

[Pluto]

Wiping out any particular insect is next to impossible. It has been tried with anopheline mosquitoes and they are still around. Higher animals are easier (too easy) to wipe out.

 

If you consider the pyramid of life the nearer the top the more change wiping out that species causes. Humans should not deliberately make any species extinct because they can't know the knock on effect. There is no line to draw if man is to survive on this planet they need a healthy environment with all the systems working correctly. Our knowledge of wildlife is far from complete thousands of species are being discovered each year.

 

With regard to the one sided blinkered view of ecologists.naturalists the only people I know who consider them one sided or blinkered are those who find that their knowledge/ideas runs contrary to what they personally want.

 

I have never heard anyone describe say an engineer as one sided and blinkered. IMO because those professions never say anything which is going to be "uncomfortable" for the people listening. Ecologists become one sided and blinkered because they say we need todo things which many others find contrary to their interest - such as letting water voles colonise canals.

Perhaps if you don't want to be considered blinkered by some people, you need to give considered arguments. You seem to want an environment which does not change, and that is completely contrary to the natural history of the world. Things are always changing, and always have done. To preserve things in aspic will damage the environment just as much as altering it. Whatever you do, it is man and other factors affecting nature, and that is how things have always developed. Based on your arguments, we should never have left the swamp and there would be no canals for voles to colonise.

 

As to the suggestion that the decisions of most professionals are considered unblinkered, and that only ecologists are persecuted, it is ridiculous. As an engineer and historian I am always happy to have my views challenged and am often considered one sided and blinkered. However, I try not to take the moral high ground and to take the view that I am always right. Have you considered the thought that environmentalists and ecologists are afraid of change, and that is why they fight against it? Yet the world is always undergoing change, and always has. You seem just to want to have things stay the same, rather than to allow change, whether natural or man-made.

[Phil Ambrose]

On the basis of what you have just posted it is OK for Elephants,Rhino, Orangutans, Gorrilas etc ad infinitum to be wiped out as it is at the hand of man.

That thinking does not sit well with be, one could extend your argument and say the Holocaust was OK because that was by the hand of man.

Boy I'm glad I don't live in your world.

Phil

[Jerra]

Perhaps if you don't want to be considered blinkered by some people, you need to give considered arguments. You seem to want an environment which does not change, and that is completely contrary to the natural history of the world. Things are always changing, and always have done. To preserve things in aspic will damage the environment just as much as altering it.

Oh dear you haven't been following me correctly. I have never suggested preserving things in aspic. If we were to preserve things in aspic when exactly would we choose as a point in time? If I wanted things to remain exactly as they are I wouldn't be arguing for colonisation of thecanals again. After all things as they are is no voles!

 

 

Whatever you do, it is man and other factors affecting nature, and that is how things have always developed. Based on your arguments, we should never have left the swamp and there would be no canals for voles to colonise.

I am not sure where you get that idea. I have said all UK environments are man made. I haven't said things shouldn't develop. In fact I want them to develop - more wildlife on the canals for us to enjoy. You are back to the "blinkered because it is uncomfortable for me" syndrome. The canals can continue to grow and develop the way it happens will just be different to the way you want it to. As I said once voles have recovered there is no reason why they can't be controlled. This has happened with bird species -species which are present in sufficient numbers can become pests and control is allowed. It is just that at present voles aren't in good numbers and for whatever reason they are finding canals a good place for recovery. As they recover they will spread out back to their old haunts -just as the Otter has done. When that happens control those on the canal to your hearts content.

 

 

As to the suggestion that the decisions of most professionals are considered unblinkered, and that only ecologists are persecuted, it is ridiculous. As an engineer and historian I am always happy to have my views challenged and am often considered one sided and blinkered. However, I try not to take the moral high ground and to take the view that I am always right. Have you considered the thought that environmentalists and ecologists are afraid of change, and that is why they fight against it? Yet the world is always undergoing change, and always has. You seem just to want to have things stay the same, rather than to allow change, whether natural or man-made.

If ecologists were afraid of change why would they be arguing for species to be brought back that is change! As an individual you are right about your position with regard to considerations of being blinkered. However give an example of a whole profession which is so often accused of being blinkered other than those connected with the natural world who want to do things others find uncomfortable.

 

Talking of being afraid of change and wanting things set in aspic does that not apply to you? You appear to be afraid of having voles on the canal and want the status quo preserved.

 

I certainly don't want things to stay the same. I want voles to continue to spread and return to their previous population numbers. I want man to live in a healthier more balanced environment than we have now. This requires change - large uncomfortable changes, which is what people like you are fighting against. It appears to me you are keener on keeping things as they are (no voles on the canals) than I am.

 

As I said earlier I find the only ones who think ecologists ( I am not one by the way) are blinkered are those with either a vested interest (those damned voles will interfere with my boating) or those who are afraid of change.

[Athy]

For all you beer and vole lovers everywere:

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Marston-Moor-Brewery-Water-Vole-Pump-Clip-/281182438761?pt=UK_Collectables_Breweriana_SM&hash=item4177c78569#ht_215wt_1400

 

I thought it would be brewed by Banks'.

[Timleech]

I do wonder how effective all this work will be in terms of encouraging voles back. If the mink are still there, it seems unlikely it'll do much good.

 

Tim

[carlt]

You seem to want an environment which does not change, and that is completely contrary to the natural history of the world.

Surely encouraging the alteration of a canal bank to encourage voles whilst still allowing boating activities means that Jerra actively wants an environment that changes.

 

Considering the change in emphasis from commercial carrying to leisure/living activities improving (changing) our immediate environment to encourage wildlife is a good thing for both visitors and residents (both human and non-human).

[Gingerbeer]

I think there is loads of concern about the bees plight and as far as wasps and beetles are concerned, with over 100,000 species of wasp and 400,000 different species of beetle, which ones are you concerned about specifically?

 

I think the ones that are dying off without any reason get my vote. Whoever they are.

[Gingerbeer]

Perhaps if you don't want to be considered blinkered by some people, you need to give considered arguments. You seem to want an environment which does not change, and that is completely contrary to the natural history of the world. Things are always changing, and always have done. To preserve things in aspic will damage the environment just as much as altering it. Whatever you do, it is man and other factors affecting nature, and that is how things have always developed. Based on your arguments, we should never have left the swamp and there would be no canals for voles to colonise.

 

As to the suggestion that the decisions of most professionals are considered unblinkered, and that only ecologists are persecuted, it is ridiculous. As an engineer and historian I am always happy to have my views challenged and am often considered one sided and blinkered. However, I try not to take the moral high ground and to take the view that I am always right. Have you considered the thought that environmentalists and ecologists are afraid of change, and that is why they fight against it? Yet the world is always undergoing change, and always has. You seem just to want to have things stay the same, rather than to allow change, whether natural or man-made.

 

As a historian or engineer, you are creating something that is not alive so your views may or may not go challenged but in the grand scheme of things, who cares. Ecologists and environmentalists are concerned with living things and protecting those plants and creatures that don't have a voice. You are right, they are afraid of change; man's change on the planet. The world is undergoing rapid change caused by "man's change", not mother nature's change. It takes millions of years to make coal and oil but we will deplete that entire supply in a fraction of that time. Things need to stay the same but change and improve to make them better. An ecologist will understand that, an engineer will not. Man has ruined the air we breath and now those things that we should hold dearest are being wiped out from our pollution. Up to 150 species are wiped out everyday, extinct.

 

I saw three voles today in the canal. Sure, they are cute and serve a function in nature. If they want to live in the canal, then why not. If a Kingfisher wants to live in my back garden and fish in my pond, then why not. Any species lost is a lost of yet more species who may rely on them. Voles get my vote for living where ever they want. As far as man made changes go, we are selfish bast***s as a society goes (not everyone so don't yell at me for that) and want what we want when we want it. I am just glad there are people out there that know when to say no to them.

[Phil Ambrose]

First class post(nothing to do with Royal Mail)

 

Phil

[Jerra]

 

As a historian or engineer, you are creating something that is not alive so your views may or may not go challenged but in the grand scheme of things, who cares. Ecologists and environmentalists are concerned with living things and protecting those plants and creatures that don't have a voice. You are right, they are afraid of change; man's change on the planet. The world is undergoing rapid change caused by "man's change", not mother nature's change. It takes millions of years to make coal and oil but we will deplete that entire supply in a fraction of that time. Things need to stay the same but change and improve to make them better. An ecologist will understand that, an engineer will not. Man has ruined the air we breath and now those things that we should hold dearest are being wiped out from our pollution. Up to 150 species are wiped out everyday, extinct.

 

I saw three voles today in the canal. Sure, they are cute and serve a function in nature. If they want to live in the canal, then why not. If a Kingfisher wants to live in my back garden and fish in my pond, then why not. Any species lost is a lost of yet more species who may rely on them. Voles get my vote for living where ever they want. As far as man made changes go, we are selfish bast***s as a society goes (not everyone so don't yell at me for that) and want what we want when we want it. I am just glad there are people out there that know when to say no to them.

Well said that man.

[Mick and Maggie]

The problem for the voles is that mink are more widespread than ever. I worked as a volunteer on a nature reserve for several years which had a small population of water voles. When mink started to turn up on site, the voles and large numbers of chicks were soon wiped out. We started trapping and we were getting 1 or 2 mink every day. The numbers started to drop after a while to 2 or 3 a month. Then a family of foxes moved in and soon afterwards a second family of foxes. The numbers of mink trapped fell further. The mink have to be constantly controlled for a period of time before re-introduction of voles. The pressure on the control of mink has to be kept up constantly. We knew we were winning when we stopped catching young mink and only trapped adults that were moving into the area. The chick mortality fell drastically, but the voles have never naturally recolonised. Mink will travel along any water course. They will happily cross open land. With no top predator to keep them in check trapping is the only way. Spending money on re-introducing voles and providing habitat without controlling mink is a waste of time.

[Jerra]

The problem for the voles is that mink are more widespread than ever. I worked as a volunteer on a nature reserve for several years which had a small population of water voles. When mink started to turn up on site, the voles and large numbers of chicks were soon wiped out. We started trapping and we were getting 1 or 2 mink every day. The numbers started to drop after a while to 2 or 3 a month. Then a family of foxes moved in and soon afterwards a second family of foxes. The numbers of mink trapped fell further. The mink have to be constantly controlled for a period of time before re-introduction of voles. The pressure on the control of mink has to be kept up constantly. We knew we were winning when we stopped catching young mink and only trapped adults that were moving into the area. The chick mortality fell drastically, but the voles have never naturally recolonised. Mink will travel along any water course. They will happily cross open land. With no top predator to keep them in check trapping is the only way. Spending money on re-introducing voles and providing habitat without controlling mink is a waste of time.

Ah the dangers of releasing an "alien" species into our countryside.

 

I understand that nationally mink numbers are falling and it appears to have a link to the number of Otters in an area. Whether the Otters kill the mink or just don't put up with competitors I don't know.

 

What ever it is good news for our natural fauna as Otters evolved to fit into our habitats unlike mink. For example an Otter can't go into a vole tunnel but a mink can giving no where for the vole to escape.

[Mick and Maggie]

Ah the dangers of releasing an "alien" species into our countryside. I understand that nationally mink numbers are falling and it appears to have a link to the number of Otters in an area. Whether the Otters kill the mink or just don't put up with competitors I don't know. What ever it is good news for our natural fauna as Otters evolved to fit into our habitats unlike mink. For example an Otter can't go into a vole tunnel but a mink can giving no where for the vole to escape.

 

The Water Vole Steering Group published more than a decade ago 'Without strategic mink control being carried out in combination with habitat enhancement, we will lose the water vole from the vast majority of the British countryside in our working lifetimes.' I hate to say it - but that is exactly what has come to pass.

 

It's known that Otter numbers are on the increase naturally and through reintroduction. There is some crossover in habitat and food sources between the two species. I suspect that the Otter is a formidable opponent to the opportunistic Mink, but I suspect that its habitat pressure because both are territorial rather than being a predator that makes the difference. However, the mink continues to spread further and further north and the change in habitat is closer to its natural habitat range.

 

Mink have been living and breeding in the wild since the 1930's. They have gained a real foothold since the 50's. Nationally there is very little in the way of effective control measures other than advice being offered. So its down to localised control to protect specific areas. Wild life sanctuaries with on-site wardens, river keepers and game such as Pheasant and the associated gamekeeper come to mind.

 

There have been ideas floating around such as developing a virus similar to Myxomatosis, a disease that affects rabbits. I shudder at the thought of reverting to such drastic measures. Which I think is just as bad as some of the ideas such as introducing non native insects to control other alien species such as Japanese Knot Weed.

 

Questions that still need answering include ‘How much control of mink numbers is needed to preserve biodiversity?’ and ‘How much control is actually possible and sustainable?' As well as 'what does it cost?’

 

Mick

[Athy]

 

The Water Vole Steering Group

[quote

.....conjures up a delightful mental picture of people attaching rudders to the voles' furry little bodies and guiding them to safety.

[Mick and Maggie]

.....conjures up a delightful mental picture of people attaching rudders to the voles' furry little bodies and guiding them to safety.

Immortalised for ever by the misnamed character of 'Ratty' in The Wind in the Willows. Somehow if a toad can drive a car. Why not a Water Vole with an outboard motor.

 

On a slightly more serious note, I found this quote from Alastair Driver, Environment Agency national conservation manager and chairman of the UK water vole steering group. He said: 'Creating new habitat helps protect our native species, like water voles and otters, and helps tackle climate change. The Environment Agency has created nearly 5,000 hectares of wetland and river habitats in the last 10 years and we hope to double this in the next 10. Added to this, our rivers are at their healthiest for over 200 years, but control of the American mink is essential if water voles are to benefit from these healthier rivers and new habitats.'

 

Everyone knows that leaving the mink uncontrolled, in a reintroduction, is in reality just providing water voles as a small snack for the mink.

[Athy]

Alastair Driver, chairman of the UK water vole steering group.

It gets better!

 

Your serious points are well made, we were delighted to see a vole swimming in the Ashby Canal in September, and hope that he doesn't become a mink's elevenses. But how are they to be controlled? Shooting? Poisoning?

 

I believe that they entered the UK wildlife scene only after well-meaning loony saboteurs let them out of farms where they were reared to provide the fur for ladies' garments - a prime example of good intentions going very wrong.

[Gingerbeer]

 

The Water Vole Steering Group published more than a decade ago 'Without strategic mink control being carried out in combination with habitat enhancement, we will lose the water vole from the vast majority of the British countryside in our working lifetimes.' I hate to say it - but that is exactly what has come to pass.

 

It's known that Otter numbers are on the increase naturally and through reintroduction. There is some crossover in habitat and food sources between the two species. I suspect that the Otter is a formidable opponent to the opportunistic Mink, but I suspect that its habitat pressure because both are territorial rather than being a predator that makes the difference. However, the mink continues to spread further and further north and the change in habitat is closer to its natural habitat range.

 

Mink have been living and breeding in the wild since the 1930's. They have gained a real foothold since the 50's. Nationally there is very little in the way of effective control measures other than advice being offered. So its down to localised control to protect specific areas. Wild life sanctuaries with on-site wardens, river keepers and game such as Pheasant and the associated gamekeeper come to mind.

 

There have been ideas floating around such as developing a virus similar to Myxomatosis, a disease that affects rabbits. I shudder at the thought of reverting to such drastic measures. Which I think is just as bad as some of the ideas such as introducing non native insects to control other alien species such as Japanese Knot Weed.

 

Questions that still need answering include ‘How much control of mink numbers is needed to preserve biodiversity?’ and ‘How much control is actually possible and sustainable?' As well as 'what does it cost?’

 

Mick

 

If I remember correctly , dogs were bred a particular size to control rodent populations, foxes, mink, and the like. I am sure a few well trained Jack Russells could get the job done without hazardous chemicals, lethal viruses, or other man made concoctions and stupid ideas. There is also trapping but although many animals rights groups say that is best, what do they think happens to these minks once caught. They don't become pets for some child on their birthday, any half witted person should know that much. Someone will tell you they are humanely destroyed. What the h**l does that mean? How does one humanely kill anything. But as long as man is around, nothing any group or government does to protect any species will be good enough to satisfy everyone. Too many otters eat the fish, too many minks kill the voles, rats, and bunnies, too many voles could cause a breach in the canal, too many cows wading into the canal will damage the sides, too much talking hurts my head.

[PaulG]

Man has ruined the air we breath

Come to Tewkesbury. It's OK here.

[Mick and Maggie]

Your serious points are well made, we were delighted to see a vole swimming in the Ashby Canal in September, and hope that he doesn't become a mink's elevenses. But how are they to be controlled? Shooting? Poisoning?

 

I believe that they entered the UK wildlife scene only after well-meaning loony saboteurs let them out of farms where they were reared to provide the fur for ladies' garments - a prime example of good intentions going very wrong.

 

The only effective way is trapping and despatching in a humane way. There are mink traps such as 'mink islands' which have been specially devised to live trap mink. We used traps that were placed in specially excavated holes and then baited. What we discovered was if we did not bait the traps. We would only catch mink rather than the occasional rats. Because the mink are inquisitive they would still enter the traps. Mink were already in the environment long before the saboteurs released additional animals. There are various dates between 1920 and 1950 where mink had been observed in the wild.

[ditchcrawler]

The problem for the voles is that mink are more widespread than ever. I worked as a volunteer on a nature reserve for several years which had a small population of water voles. When mink started to turn up on site, the voles and large numbers of chicks were soon wiped out. We started trapping and we were getting 1 or 2 mink every day. The numbers started to drop after a while to 2 or 3 a month. Then a family of foxes moved in and soon afterwards a second family of foxes. The numbers of mink trapped fell further. The mink have to be constantly controlled for a period of time before re-introduction of voles. The pressure on the control of mink has to be kept up constantly. We knew we were winning when we stopped catching young mink and only trapped adults that were moving into the area. The chick mortality fell drastically, but the voles have never naturally recolonised. Mink will travel along any water course. They will happily cross open land. With no top predator to keep them in check trapping is the only way. Spending money on re-introducing voles and providing habitat without controlling mink is a waste of time.

Unfortunately unlike Coypu there is no government appetite to fund the destruction of the mink population.

[Gingerbeer]

Come to Tewkesbury. It's OK here.

 

Maybe I should. I have never seen a real town in a bubble before except those at Christmas time that you shake to see the snow fly around.

 

The only effective way is trapping and despatching in a humane way. There are mink traps such as 'mink islands' which have been specially devised to live trap mink. We used traps that were placed in specially excavated holes and then baited. What we discovered was if we did not bait the traps. We would only catch mink rather than the occasional rats. Because the mink are inquisitive they would still enter the traps. Mink were already in the environment long before the saboteurs released additional animals. There are various dates between 1920 and 1950 where mink had been observed in the wild.

 

The mink here are not native and were released on purpose for the most part. This should clear up any minkconceptions

http://www.gwct.org.uk/research__surveys/predation/predation_control/mink/2553.asp