> The one thing the pressure groups hate mentioning is badgers
There is a sub-text throughout all of this, which is touched upon but not explicitly stated: culling of badgers in Britain is a highly emotive subject, and it's become one of the touchstone issues for many people, along with (for example) fox-hunting and other so-called blood-sports. (Although the badgers are being culled, rather than hunted for sport.) The UK government seems committed to reducing badger numbers at the urging of the farming industry who despise badgers for their role in spreading bovine tuberculosis. Opponents of the cull maintain it merely disperses badgers, making the TB problem worse.
So if badgers are killing hedgehogs (an even more popular animal due to their role in English folklore and fiction) it might change attitudes towards badger culling. Personally, I think he underplays the role of road-kill in their demise, the "flat hedgehog" has become a cultural reference-point:
Hedgehogs aren't nearly as common road-kill casualties as people tend to think - it's just that their prickles break down really slowly, so we see more of their remains on the road than other animals. Not because so many of them die, just because the evidence hangs around longer.
The badger cull is absolutely the only reason this article was written.
Note that Ridley is a member of the UK government, so it's not a coincidence that he would be writing an article to defend the UK government's policies.
Please don't interpret this as an ad hominem, but advice to find more sources on this issue, as the author is basically as Establishment as it is possible to be in the UK without actually being a member of the Royal family.
He's a Viscount, Conservative, member of the House of Lords, with a column in the Times. He is literally a coal baron (Baron Wensleydale). He was chairman of Northern Rock at the time when it was the first bank to collapse in the UK in the recent crisis.
Yet he's a brilliant author of pop-sci books on evolution and as a "rational optimist" who believes in leaving systems to self-organize, this inconsistent call for "regulation" of the badger-hedgehog "market" hints at cognitive dissonance.
Like, ok usually markets and ecosystems should be left alone to do their thing, unless if it involves hunting, in which case, we want to go hunting and here's an excuse why.
Why can't the upper-class just be honest that they love hunting, it's a tradition of theirs, nobody agrees with them, there's absolutely no reason for it other than sport, why bother trying to justify it ?
not disagreeing or trying to undermine your argument, but curious (i'm in northern ohio). traditional coyotes, or the coyote-wolf-dog mix that is ubiquitous in the northeast ?
>Unless we are prepared to unleash brown bears, lynx and wolves into the English countryside to control badgers and help hedgehogs, which seems unlikely
Wolves and Bears can be dangerous for people living in the countryside, but is there any reason to believe releasing lynx would be a bad idea?
Totally anecdotal, but my experience corroborates this. I lived in Hampshire for three years recently and despite lots of searching, never saw a live hedgehog and only two dead ones. In that time I did see probably a dozen badgers and innumerable foxes.
Background: I live in Ireland and hosted 7 hedgehogs in/around our garden last year. 2-3 are probably hibernating within 50m. I tag, track, name & write notes on them each evening. Anecdotally, I've never seen a badger around here though we do have foxes, stoats and, I would expect, badgers.
Hedgehogs represent the most accessible of wild animals. They don't mind human presence and you can literally walk outside with a torch and stand next to them. If you want to understand our attachment to hedgehogs, Hugh Warwicks' books, particularly 'A Prickly Affair', describe our relationship with humour, engaging stories and field research: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Prickly-Affair-Charm-Hedgehog/dp/014.... Likewise, if you'd like to know more about hedgehog behaviour and research, Pat Morris' book is quite definitive: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hedgehogs-British-Natural-History-Co...
Of course badgers will sometimes eat hedgehogs! They both compete for the same food sources (insects, worms, etc), and occupy the same territory (hedgerows, bordering open farmland), and badgers have the means to kill a hedgehog (strong powerful claws). But badgers don't seek out hedgehogs. In areas where food or habitat is scare, they will eat hedgehogs. Why not? You get to take out an ecological competitor AND have a meal! Win-win for the badger. But there's also countless examples of badgers ignoring hedgehogs, or feeding alongside each other both in the wild and urban gardens.
So perhaps the question should be: when don't badgers eat hedgehogs? It appears there's no problem when food is plentiful. Perhaps we should be encouraging hedgerow preservation and reducing pesticide use (i.e., the problem) instead of calling for a cull of badgers (the symptom).
Largely, this plight of the hedgehog against the dastardly badger is a means of using a well-loved animal to support a cull of badgers aimed at reducing TB in livestock. "Won't somebody please think of the hedgehogs" is now their rallying cry.
They're not armored, they just have spines to discourage soft fleshy bits from getting too close. They're preyed on by large birds (some owls, golden eagles — >40% of golden eagle preys in Gotland, ~30% in Estonia), juveniles and sick individuals are preyed upon by dogs and foxes. Badgers are strong enough with long enough claws[0] that they can go through the coat, but AFAIK only bother to do so when very hungry.
Also cars and trucks, hedgehogs are not car-proof.
We're currently in the midst of a mass extinction which is largely being driven by humanity. The selection pressure that we are placing on many species for outweigh's natural selection's ability to act on random mutation to promote fitter variants.
What you are promoting isn't a course of action that will lead to an alternative, rich ecosystem better suited to current conditions. It would simply lead to an impoverished and more fragile ecosystem, ultimately less capable of supporting humanity, if we want to go down the reductionist utilitarian road.
We are custodians of an astonishingly rich and diverse biosphere, which we are already damaging. We have a duty to try and mitigate that damage.
Not that it's my prediction, but evolution can also work by all humans dying due to the destruction of their environment and then something else evolving of whatever creatures survived. Human extinction is not different from dinosaur extinction; I believe that we'd rather avoid it for selfish reasons, regardless of the fact that it's just one paths of evolution among many. Certainly it being an evolutionary path not unlike others does not make it tempting.
"Evolution" is whatever is happening - survival of the survivors. If humans kill a certain number of badgers and the number of hedgehogs rises plus a bunch of other hard to predict things happens, it's "evolution" as much as humans having killed larger predators and done nothing about badgers and whatever happened next. An alien observer might comment that the number of badgers went down due to humans, or instead that the number of hedgehogs went down due to badgers. The only real question is whether you think more harm than good is done by reducing the number of badgers, and it ought to be answered on specific grounds.
When i was a kid it wasn't uncommon to open the backdoor in the morning to find hedgehogs curled up on the doormat. I don't think I've even seen evidence of one since then though.
Conventional wisdom in the UK is that their decline is due to decimation of their natural habitat and food sources by us, cars squishing them, slug tablets, people burning piles of leaves (where they sleep) etc etc. Badgers being responsible to any significant degree seems a little far-fetched.
[+] [-] m0nty|10 years ago|reply
There is a sub-text throughout all of this, which is touched upon but not explicitly stated: culling of badgers in Britain is a highly emotive subject, and it's become one of the touchstone issues for many people, along with (for example) fox-hunting and other so-called blood-sports. (Although the badgers are being culled, rather than hunted for sport.) The UK government seems committed to reducing badger numbers at the urging of the farming industry who despise badgers for their role in spreading bovine tuberculosis. Opponents of the cull maintain it merely disperses badgers, making the TB problem worse.
So if badgers are killing hedgehogs (an even more popular animal due to their role in English folklore and fiction) it might change attitudes towards badger culling. Personally, I think he underplays the role of road-kill in their demise, the "flat hedgehog" has become a cultural reference-point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R5tUc1S3cc
It will be interesting to see if this story goes mainstream and affects the ongoing debate in any way.
[+] [-] oneandoneis2|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anon1385|10 years ago|reply
Note that Ridley is a member of the UK government, so it's not a coincidence that he would be writing an article to defend the UK government's policies.
[+] [-] pjc50|10 years ago|reply
He's a Viscount, Conservative, member of the House of Lords, with a column in the Times. He is literally a coal baron (Baron Wensleydale). He was chairman of Northern Rock at the time when it was the first bank to collapse in the UK in the recent crisis.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/viscount-matt...
What I'm saying is of course he's in favour of shooting badgers. Find some more sources with vetinary backgrounds.
[+] [-] treerock|10 years ago|reply
What like the sources he links to in the article?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010....
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/naturestudie...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347296...
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2981/wlb.00072
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26678664_Predator_i...
This is purely ad hominen, he's posh, therefore we can ignore his arguments.
[+] [-] hendekagon|10 years ago|reply
Like, ok usually markets and ecosystems should be left alone to do their thing, unless if it involves hunting, in which case, we want to go hunting and here's an excuse why.
Why can't the upper-class just be honest that they love hunting, it's a tradition of theirs, nobody agrees with them, there's absolutely no reason for it other than sport, why bother trying to justify it ?
[+] [-] easytiger|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nqzero|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timdiggerm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Symbiote|10 years ago|reply
It's despicable how the royal family interfere in politics like this, and I don't understand why the Labour government tolerated it.
[1] Page 10 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prince-of-wales-c...
[+] [-] rcurry|10 years ago|reply
I'm sorry, but this guy needs to get his facts straight. Southern California is home to some of the highest density coyote populations in the state.
[+] [-] nqzero|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Maken|10 years ago|reply
Wolves and Bears can be dangerous for people living in the countryside, but is there any reason to believe releasing lynx would be a bad idea?
[+] [-] m0nty|10 years ago|reply
I can only imagine how livestock farmers will react.
[+] [-] foreigner|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hopeless|10 years ago|reply
Hedgehogs represent the most accessible of wild animals. They don't mind human presence and you can literally walk outside with a torch and stand next to them. If you want to understand our attachment to hedgehogs, Hugh Warwicks' books, particularly 'A Prickly Affair', describe our relationship with humour, engaging stories and field research: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Prickly-Affair-Charm-Hedgehog/dp/014.... Likewise, if you'd like to know more about hedgehog behaviour and research, Pat Morris' book is quite definitive: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hedgehogs-British-Natural-History-Co...
Of course badgers will sometimes eat hedgehogs! They both compete for the same food sources (insects, worms, etc), and occupy the same territory (hedgerows, bordering open farmland), and badgers have the means to kill a hedgehog (strong powerful claws). But badgers don't seek out hedgehogs. In areas where food or habitat is scare, they will eat hedgehogs. Why not? You get to take out an ecological competitor AND have a meal! Win-win for the badger. But there's also countless examples of badgers ignoring hedgehogs, or feeding alongside each other both in the wild and urban gardens.
So perhaps the question should be: when don't badgers eat hedgehogs? It appears there's no problem when food is plentiful. Perhaps we should be encouraging hedgerow preservation and reducing pesticide use (i.e., the problem) instead of calling for a cull of badgers (the symptom).
It would be worth referencing the Peoples Trust for Endangered Species statement on Hedgehogs vs Badgers: https://ptes.org/campaigns/hedgehogs/
Largely, this plight of the hedgehog against the dastardly badger is a means of using a well-loved animal to support a cull of badgers aimed at reducing TB in livestock. "Won't somebody please think of the hedgehogs" is now their rallying cry.
[+] [-] xivzgrev|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atemerev|10 years ago|reply
(No, I won't be looking up the gory details in Youtube...)
[+] [-] masklinn|10 years ago|reply
They're not armored, they just have spines to discourage soft fleshy bits from getting too close. They're preyed on by large birds (some owls, golden eagles — >40% of golden eagle preys in Gotland, ~30% in Estonia), juveniles and sick individuals are preyed upon by dogs and foxes. Badgers are strong enough with long enough claws[0] that they can go through the coat, but AFAIK only bother to do so when very hungry.
Also cars and trucks, hedgehogs are not car-proof.
[0] http://cdn2.arkive.org/media/BD/BD56A45A-197D-4EC4-BC79-D052...
[+] [-] jballanc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlebrech|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Angostura|10 years ago|reply
We're currently in the midst of a mass extinction which is largely being driven by humanity. The selection pressure that we are placing on many species for outweigh's natural selection's ability to act on random mutation to promote fitter variants.
What you are promoting isn't a course of action that will lead to an alternative, rich ecosystem better suited to current conditions. It would simply lead to an impoverished and more fragile ecosystem, ultimately less capable of supporting humanity, if we want to go down the reductionist utilitarian road.
We are custodians of an astonishingly rich and diverse biosphere, which we are already damaging. We have a duty to try and mitigate that damage.
[+] [-] _yosefk|10 years ago|reply
"Evolution" is whatever is happening - survival of the survivors. If humans kill a certain number of badgers and the number of hedgehogs rises plus a bunch of other hard to predict things happens, it's "evolution" as much as humans having killed larger predators and done nothing about badgers and whatever happened next. An alien observer might comment that the number of badgers went down due to humans, or instead that the number of hedgehogs went down due to badgers. The only real question is whether you think more harm than good is done by reducing the number of badgers, and it ought to be answered on specific grounds.
[+] [-] Scarblac|10 years ago|reply
And I don't see why we can't keep regulating nature.
[+] [-] nly|10 years ago|reply
Conventional wisdom in the UK is that their decline is due to decimation of their natural habitat and food sources by us, cars squishing them, slug tablets, people burning piles of leaves (where they sleep) etc etc. Badgers being responsible to any significant degree seems a little far-fetched.
[+] [-] lucd|10 years ago|reply
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/badger.html
[+] [-] NoGravitas|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enziobodoni|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bboreham|10 years ago|reply