Well, where do we all stand on Reds?

sawman said:
Not quite. In Scotland we tend to find the greys among the hardwoods more while the conifers hold the reds better. Scots Pine & Larch being favoured species both by the reds & my saw!:lol:
I always look with envy to England for its fine hardwoods though. Thats another story.
:D
Are we going to debate timber next?:lol:
Click to expand...
Cheers Charlie :thumbs:
Oh and stick to ya' own bloody "side" these are our trees :D

Janice said:
The greys can digest acorns but the reds can't.
Click to expand...

Thats not something I have heard before Janice
and find it slightly surprising as years ago ( lots and lots) we had a lot of Oak trees I am sure they would have colonised these.
but not to be able to eat the nuts :shrug:
Still, I'll take your word for it :thumbs:


edit it seems that Wikipedia agrees with you
 
Last edited:
We have no reds, but I would gladly sacrifice all the greys we have to get the reds back.
 
fracster said:
We have no reds, but I would gladly sacrifice all the greys we have to get the reds back.
Click to expand...

Is it too late to change sides :shrug:
Just a had a quick chat to my mate Gooooooooooooooooooooogle
and it seems that Greys out number the reds 66-1 in England
Can we not cull the reds and save the greys? It'll be far easier :thumbs:

page 2 (linky)
Has a list of Red "friendly" trees I've learned something today :thumbs:
 
Better get them cages dusted off then.
 
shoot the greys; ask questions later!
One 'lovely' grey lady has taken a liking to the bulbs we planted yesterday and eaten a load. She'll either blossom in spring or die. Preferably the latter. I've now taken to learning to shoot with a water pistol instead of the camera.
 
CarolF said:
shoot the greys; ask questions later!
One 'lovely' grey lady has taken a liking to the bulbs we planted yesterday and eaten a load. She'll either blossom in spring or die. Preferably the latter. I've now taken to learning to shoot with a water pistol instead of the camera.
Click to expand...

Water pistols aren't too effective. Try one of these:lol:
photo
 
Last edited:
Nice Le Page - looks just like my old Rowland Watson.

LOL at the water pistol idea. I bought a Supa Soaka job for just that purpose, the slight creak as first pressure was applied to the trigger and they were 20 yards away! They can twist in mid air and avoid a jet of water anyway. :D
 
If you go down to the woods today you're in for a big surprise

AS.jpg


AS2.jpg


AS3.jpg


Sorry couldnt resist :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Trev
 
Dont point that at me sunshine this is what happens to norty squidgers
doubles are not that common but it happens
the Kania 2000 a fairly recent and very effective addition to the arsenal


edit don't look if your a grey fan

edit hindsight :D
don't want to be blamed for getting it locked links gone :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
LOL. I sense a thread loick coming on! :lol:
 
CT said:
LOL. I sense a thread loick coming on! :lol:
Click to expand...

thats why I linked 'em not posted :D
Its run longer than I thought it would anyway

 
Damn............:(
 
sawman said:
So are you saying we should just let the grey squirrel continue on its way unchecked until all the reds are wiped out?
An individual grey can carry the pox & as I said earlier I for one will do my bit to try to make sure they do not infect our resident reds.
Click to expand...

no im saying we shouldn't cull them, just help the reds become imune instead.
 
Yantorsen said:
no im saying we shouldn't cull them, just help the reds become imune instead.
Click to expand...
Who is going to fund the work? it cost millions and several years to produce a new drug. They did try a "contraceptive" a few years ago and the was obviously a roaring sucess :D
 
Yantorsen said:
no im saying we shouldn't cull them, just help the reds become imune instead.
Click to expand...
Whilst we are waiting for the chemists to sort things out, should we not help the reds along, just a tad?
 
fracster said:
Whilst we are waiting for the chemists to sort things out, should we not help the reds along, just a tad?
Click to expand...

no

Cobra said:
Who is going to fund the work? it cost millions and several years to produce a new drug. They did try a "contraceptive" a few years ago and the was obviously a roaring sucess :D
Click to expand...

they just discovered that some reds have began to be imune, so if they just get a bit of what they have it shouldn't be long.
 
Why not?
 
Yantorsen said:
no



they just discovered that some reds have began to be imune, so if they just get a bit of what they have it shouldn't be long.
Click to expand...


8 reds out of 500 over a 12 year period. The immunity is not going to happen overnight
 
Cage and drown works well............:)
 
Yantorsen said:
no



they just discovered that some reds have began to be imune, so if they just get a bit of what they have it shouldn't be long.
Click to expand...

There will always be a small amount of "naturally immune" to what ever the disease is be that human or animal ( we would have become extinct many years ago if that were not the case)
Do you have any idea how long that takes from identifying a "gene" or antibody to actually having a useful inoculation?
and the amount of research it takes.
you will need hundreds if not thousands of subjects to run trials on.
OK so I have over simplified it but you get the idea.
once its "proven" and has government backing its then a case of
"1st catch your squidger" :thumbs:
 
Cobra said:
There will always be a small amount of "naturally immune" to what ever the disease is be that human or animal ( we would have become extinct many years ago if that were not the case)
Do you have any idea how long that takes from identifying a "gene" or antibody to actually having a useful inoculation?
and the amount of research it takes.
you will need hundreds if not thousands of subjects to run trials on.
OK so I have over simplified it but you get the idea.
once its "proven" and has government backing its then a case of
"1st catch your squidger" :thumbs:
Click to expand...

it'd only take a matter of years, and could allow all squirrels to live together in harmony:)

and once you got it in the pop. it will be passed on.
 
Yantorsen said:
it'd only take a matter of years, and could allow all squirrels to live together in harmony:)

and once you got it in the pop. it will be passed on.
Click to expand...
"A survey of the corpses of more than 500 red squirrels collected for laboratory analysis found that eight had been exposed to the squirrel pox"

Its getting late now but what's that work out to 1.5%?

"It is thought there are only about 140,000 red squirrels left in Britain, about 75 per cent of them north of the Scottish Border. This compares with about 2.5 million grey squirrels,"

at a rough calculation reds are out numbered 8:1
the 1 odd percent would have to breed with the other 98 odd percent
faster than they came into contact with the "pox" the pox can be caught all year around
but they will only breed once or twice a year to pass on the immunity to the offspring...

 
well its nearly 2% actually.

but still whats your point?

I don't get why its just to kill greys because of there colour?
 
Cobra said:
If only that were true you only have to look at what man is doing to man around the world.
Click to expand...

We can at least aim to be civil though, don't you think? I mean nobodies perfect, but the systematic killing of innocent squirrels? It'll be people next...
 
Yantorsen said:
well its nearly 2% actually.

but still whats your point?
I don't get why its just to kill greys because of there colour?
Click to expand...

Ok so seeings that I am in a generous mood I will give you your "2%"
BUT do the maths
do you not understand how gentics work?
or The way that (a percentage of ) immunity is passes naturally through the milk
some anti-bodies will also cross the placental barrier.
BUT a naturally immune "donor" be that male or female has to breed and the kits reared to maturity.
ipso facto they are dying faster than breeding. Other wise they ( reds) wouldn't be indecline

Yantorsen said:
, but the systematic killing of innocent squirrels? It'll be people next...
Click to expand...

Innocent is not a word I would use on a (sub) species that is in the process of wiping out another...
And of course people don't kill people :thumbs:

This has been a cracking thread thanks to all concerned which ever side of the fence you are on :thumbs:

I am outta here now for a couple of weeks to warmer climes. :wave:
I guess this thread will have either died or been locked by the time I get back
so either way this is my last post on the subject.
the rest of you enjoy fighting your own corners and play nice :D :thumbs:
 
CT said:
Nice Le Page - looks just like my old Rowland Watson.

LOL at the water pistol idea. I bought a Supa Soaka job for just that purpose, the slight creak as first pressure was applied to the trigger and they were 20 yards away! They can twist in mid air and avoid a jet of water anyway. :D
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a good gun, made in 1897 and in perfect working nick. Very lightweight so it has a kick like a mule. I bought it as a tractor gun but it's too good for that.
sidexside_2.jpg
 
We're going off topic a bit Garry, but it is very nice. I did have a William Powell Sidelock made in 1890, which incredibly was still in original proof. Beautiful gun, and I sometimes still wish I hadn't sold it even though I don't shoot any more.
 
CT said:
We're going off topic a bit Garry, but it is very nice. I did have a William Powell Sidelock made in 1890, which incredibly was still in original proof. Beautiful gun, and I sometimes still wish I hadn't sold it even though I don't shoot any more.
Click to expand...
Yes, a bit off topic but then this is the off topic forum:lol: And they're wonderful things to photograph.

The only reason I mention guns really is that I believe that if wildlife does need to be killed then it should be done humanely, and IMO there's nothing that does the job better than a 12 bore. My sport is clay shooting, which only hurts my pocket, and I get no pleasure from shooting animals.

I do find it strange though that some people (who are just as entitled to their opinions as I am to mine) feel that it's cruel to shoot squirrels and other pests. My guess is that if they had seen rats eating young chickens alive they'd think differently. I also assume that most of these people are happy to eat chicken that have lived a short, miserable life in a cage and suffered a cruel death. Wildlife on the other hand has a free, natural life and, if shot, has a good death.
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
Yes, a bit off topic but then this is the off topic forum:lol: And they're wonderful things to photograph.

The only reason I mention guns really is that I believe that if wildlife does need to be killed then it should be done humanely, and IMO there's nothing that does the job better than a 12 bore. My sport is clay shooting, which only hurts my pocket, and I get no pleasure from shooting animals.


I do find it strange though that some people (who are just as entitled to their opinions as I am to mine) feel that it's cruel to shoot squirrels and other pests. My guess is that if they had seen rats eating young chickens alive they'd think differently. I also assume that most of these people are happy to eat chicken that have lived a short, miserable life in a cage and suffered a cruel death. Wildlife on the other hand has a free, natural life and, if shot, has a good death.
Click to expand...

I agree with you entirely mate, but I've had too many of the sort of arguments we're seeing in this thread to know that you rarely find any common ground. A guy I used to work with was an RSPB member and fiercely anti shooting of game birds,(despite the fact that the RSPB are not). To his credit he accepted an invitation from me to come and observe a days pheasant shooting against his better judgement, and he went away with a whole different slant on it. It was nowhere near the slaughter he envisaged and he was impressed with the way the day was conducted. He confessed over a pint in the pub that he'd really enjoyed the day, and came beating for us a few times after that.

The accustion people level at you is you're 'Killing for pleasure' and they can't seem to get past that concept. Probably we do ourselves no favours by calling it 'Field Sports' when really it's hunting pure and simple.

I used to shoot clays 3 days a week at one time (English Sporting) and I used to drop in and out of AA class like a yoyo, just not consistent enough to stay there. My mate used to joke that we'd fired a Porsche down each barrel and we probably did! :lol:
 
Last edited:
Sorry fellas, totally disagree on the 12 bore side of things.A rifle is a far more humane way of killing things........just my opinion guys....:)
 
Got to agree with Ade on this one.

What ever happened to the old .410? (My first ever gun) Wouldn't it be better with much less of a spread.
 
TrevDR said:
Got to agree with Ade on this one.

What ever happened to the old .410? (My first ever gun) Wouldn't it be better with much less of a spread.
Click to expand...
The 'spread' is governed by distance and choke, not by bore. A .410 has (far) less pellets than a 12 bore so has a lot more space between them, making it far less humane. I'm sure that if squirrels (or anything else) had a choice they'd vote for a 12 bore:)

I believe the difference in energy is something like 640 ft lbs in a 410 against 2400 in a standard 12 bore. The only advantage of a .410 is that the low power = low recoil, making them ideal for lightweight people and people just starting out, who are more likely to injure themselves by not mounting a powerful gun correctly into the shoulder.
The gun in my photo is half/full choked - which means that the shooter needs to be competent but the quarry benefits by being hit by a very large number of pellets.
 
I realise this Garry but..............

If you are using a 3 inch magnum

With the longer shot strings of the smaller bores comes the advantage of better patterns than the good old twelve.

This means that although the pattern may be smaller, there will be less holes in it. The small bore user does, however, have to be a little more accurate than his bigger bore brethren. Indeed the .410 user needs to be about 120% more accurate than a 12-bore man, which can be a little demoralising for the latter if pegged next to a small bore user who knows what he's doing.
 
I understand the theory but...

I found myself shooting clays with a .410 for a couple of weeks when both my sporting guns were being repaired once. I was hitting reasonably well, clays changing direction etc but often they just didn't break, and on close targets they'd break instead of turning to dust.
So, my conclusions from this (rightly or wrongly) are that although the longer shot string may produce a theoretically better pattern and may make targets like crossers easier to hit, the .410 doesn't produce enough power to guarantee a clean kill.
My conclusion from this is that a 12 bore is the right tool for vermin (as well as being cheaper to run but I may be wrong of course, I'm no expert.
 
fracster said:
Sorry fellas, totally disagree on the 12 bore side of things.A rifle is a far more humane way of killing things........just my opinion guys....:)
Click to expand...

I'm surprised at you. It all depends on species and range. ;)

PS I'd like to see you hitting driven pheasants with a rifle!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top