When the Doggerland bridge flooded the British Isles became separated from
Continental Europe and its wildlife developed uniquely. The British Isles, for the purpose of this work includes Ireland, and isolated the wolves on both became what would be island species not affected by the usual island dwarfism. These wolves, after millennia. Became “unwanted” and forests and woodland was burnt down or cut down for the specific purpose of lupicide; the killing of every and any wolf –and there was a bounty for “a job well done”.
At the same time there also developed three unique island species of Old fox from the coyote-like Mountain or Greyhound fox, the slightly smaller but robustly built Mastiff or Bulldog fox and the smaller Common or Cur fox –the latter like today’s red foxes had a symbiotic relationship with humans.
These canids were mainly ignored until it was decided that they could provide fur and meat and those things earn money. From that point onward, especially after all other game had been killed off, the fox faced what writers over the centuries referred to as vulpicide –extermination through bounties paid, trapping or hunting and despite all the hunters noting that the Old foxes were nearing extinction they continued to hunt until by the late 1880s the Old were gone and replaced by the New –foxes imported by the thousands every year for the ‘sport’ of fox hunting and this importation also led the the UK seeing the appearance of mange (unknown before the importations).
The travelling British sportsmen went coyote, wolf and jackal hunting and on returning to England wanted to bring a taste of this to “the good old country”. Wolves, jackals and coyotes were set up in hunting territories from where they could learn the lay of the land and provide good sport later. Some hunts even attempted to cross-breed foxes, jackals and Coyotes.
Then there were the legendary –almost mythical– “beasts”; the black beast of Edale, the killer canids of Cavan and the “girt dog” of Ennerdale.
In more recent times raccoon dogs and arctic foxes have appeared in the UK; some released for ‘sport’ while others are exotic escapees long since established in the countryside.
If you thought you knew what fox hunting was about prepare to be woken up by a sharp slap to the face and the reality that, by admissions of hunts themselves, this was all about fun and sport and nothing to do with “pest control”.
In 1896 Scottish naturalists and zoologists declared that the true Scottish wild cat had become extinct by the 1860s. What we see today is nothing more than a wild tabby cat. In this work the true history and destruction of wild cats from England, Wales (where hybrids clung on into the 1940s) and Scotland is explored and after decades of research the true look of the wild cat is revealed. The "English Tiger" and "Highland Tiger" truly lived up to that name.
Dogma is finally thrown out.
There is also a look at the "New Native Cats" ranging from Asian Golden Cats, Lynx, Puma and others and the evidence leading to their being so designated. No silly press or media stories just solid facts backed up by evidence. The author acted as an exotic species wildlife consultant to UK police forces from 1977-2015 as well as cooperated with university projects on the subject.
Island cats as well as feral cats their lifestyles and problems mare also covered .
Fully referenced and including maps, illustrations and very rare photographs -some never before seen in print- make this a book for amateur naturalists and zoologists.
The struggle against public ignorance when it comes to wildlife and attempts to study and conserve wildlife is ongoing. It is often made worse by things out of your control.
Yesterday I posted Otters -Post Mortems Are VERY Important and as usual shared a link to the Vale Wildlife Group, as well as Friends of the Western Slopes, Bristol Naturalist Society and Bristol Nature Network Face Book pages. In one case at the request of someone on the group. Then I received, one after another, warnings that the posts had gone against FBs community standards (it does not in any way shape or form).
Today I received another...
I am appealing again (not that you can actually talk to anyone on FB. But, if the fourth strike is upheld then my account, I am warned, will be suspended.
The problem seems to be caused by the fact that the groups can leave a post waiting for approval for many hours and that, FB seems to think, means it is spam of some kind. Of course I do understand that moderators need to consider and allow posts from anyone who has been a naturalist all his life, has been a UK police forces exotic animals advisor since 1977, has contributed to technical papers and written books on wildlife.
Sarcasm aside, FB allows people to show footage and images of wildlife, especially foxes, they have killed (illegally) and allow sex scammers and people pushing porn sites but those are, of course, not against the fictional community standards.
So will I be banned for promoting wildlife health studies and conservation?
A European otter (_Lutra lutra_) eating a fish. - Credit: Marc Baldwin
`
Got involved, accidentally as is normal, in the matter of a dead otter cub in the North of England. The behaviour and its death raised concerns with the rescue involved and as they do microscopy work on hedgehog faeces they did the same with the otter cub.
To cut a long story short the rescue arranged with an Environment Agency contact to have the otter sent down to Cardiff University Otter Project.
Now the rescue sent me two microscopy photos and two video clips and I forwarded these to the excellent pathologist that carries out all the dead fox post mortems. He expressed an interest in carrying out a full diagnostic post mortem on the cub and I explained that the carcass was going to Cardiff. I learnt that Cardiff does not carry out full diagnostic PMs which I had not realised before nd are more interested in the genetic side of otters.
In fact, there is a very interesting article on that very subject:
Country-wide genetic monitoring over 21 years reveals lag in genetic recovery despite spatial connectivity in an expanding carnivore (Eurasian otter, Lutra lutra) population
Nia E. Thomas, Frank Hailer, Michael W. Bruford, Elizabeth A. Chadwick
Now, as I note, the pathologist in Bristol is top notch and far more thorough in his work than we had ever expected -in fact Cardiff has been known to ask for assists if they find anything.
Although the genetic work is very important it seems that there is little to no information on parasites, etc in otters because the work has not been carried out.
I can bore endlessly on post mortems and what we have learnt about foxes and the thing is those PMs are adding to the data because it was never carried out before -again, fox work has mainly been about DNA. With otters it is just as important to know what is going on and the general health of the population and so on.
What I am not saying is "Ignore Cardiff" -they do valuable work. What I am suggesting is that any dead otters be sent to Bristol for full diagnostic post mortems. Cardiff does not lose out in any way as they get what they need. In a way it is almost like getting constant head pains that nothing seems to stop so you get a choice to see your GP again or a neurologist (hint just in case -go for the neurologist).
The importance of seeing what is going on health wise with any population, especially one as restricted as otters, is not just going to add to what we know but help detect health issues in a local population and in some instances try to help stop those issues. Again, we are learning more and more about treating foxes in the wild without trapping, stressing, treating in a centre after a long journey then releasing than ever.
How do we treat lung worm in otters that could kill them or do we simply sit back and wait for them to die then do a post mortem and cross our fingers in the hope they will not all die off?
The emphasis is, again, on the fact that Cardiff does NOT lose out and that is very important. If I thought that sending otters to Bristol for PM would create problems and halt Cardiff's research then, however strongly I feel about the health and welfare issue here I would not suggest it. In fact, I have nothing to gain from this in case anyone wonders -I am a mammalogist specialising in canids, felids and mustelids and the last thing I want to do is jump into the otter ring.
So, please, if you find a dead otter, let me know and I can forward the details on who to contact so that we can get the post mortems and Cardiff also gets the data it needs.
And I apologise if I step on anyone's toes but I have always been hands on in wildlife work and upsetting people is not what I want to do.
In 2022 I learnt quite by accident that some tenants in the Staple Hill area of Bristol were using equipment purchased from Ebay and Amazon to create electrical fencing to deter otters from koi carp ponds. This is also going on in other areas with carp ponds.
I went through DEFRA who were utterly useless and did not seem to give a damn about the matter despite, and I quote:
"Otters are designated and protected as European protected species ( EPS ). EPS are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. It is an offence to: deliberately kill, injure, disturb or capture them."
So after the usual run around I contacted Bristol City Council Animal Welfare 🙄 Department and I was given the shrug and "nothing to do with us" (BCC just keeps on 'giving'). Despite otter deaths on one particular road the idea of fencing and an animal road underpass was "beyond council local policy" whatever that means.
My next port of call was the supposed be all and end all on these things -Natural England. I emailed, got passed along, ignored and then after further efforts to be a pest got this response in January but Natural England does not seem to give a ****.
"Hello Terry
"I have had an email from another colleague about your query which I thought might be useful for you. He has read the Natural England guidance that was on the facebook thread and had the following comment:
"Although this refers to development and habitat loss I think the people with the pond need to be careful how they mitigate against the otters to protect the pond. The extract includes ‘uses otter-proof fences to stop otters getting on to development sites’.
"He suggests contacting Natural England for a clear answer on what people are allowed to do to protect an established pond.
"I believe this is the quote in question.
"Avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures
Look for examples of avoidance, mitigation or compensation plans in the development proposal. The proposal could avoid:
· work on or near the water body and known otter habitat, including work to road crossings and culverts
· disturbance effects, for example, by leaving a buffer zone along a river
· night works
The size of the buffer zone along the stretch of water will vary depending on:
· how otters use the area
· the type of vegetation at the site
· the level of existing background disturbance
· the level of proposed disturbance
Where avoidance measures are not possible, mitigation measures could include designing the development so that it:
· retains otter habitats in the water body and bank
· uses otter-proof fences to stop otters getting into development sites
"Otters are highly territorial animals with large home ranges. Depending on the quality of the habitat and availability of food, males can range along rivers for 35km. Otters will continue to try and use routes if alternatives are not included in a mitigation strategy.
Contact Natural England
Natural England County Hall Spetchley Road Worcester WR5 2NP United Kingdom
Email
enquiries@naturalengland.org.uk
Telephone
0300 060 3900"
So I am now chasing NE up again. It is about time people began to learn to live with wildlife and find ways around problems without the use of devices that might harm wildlife.
Simple answer is "no" and the excuse of "we had no idea" will be the defence. Three times I have been called in when developers "Had no idea" that they were destroying an area with badger setts in and in one case they replaced vegetation and signs for workers to not enter area. As I pointed out to them it was that or reporting and prosecution (and very bad press)
Developer fells mature woodland that had bats and owls in area
How the plot used to look. The trees formed part of the large wooded garden of a property in Corfe Mullen, Dorset owned by an elderly man until he died last year - MAX WILLCOCK/BNPS
Villagers in Dorset have condemned the felling of 20 trees thought to have been the home of bats and owls as an act of “environmental vandalism”.
More than 20 mature trees were cut down in a single day in the garden of a house in Corfe Mullen in September, previously owned by an elderly man who died last year.
The plot had tall conifers, ash and oak, thought to have been over 100 years old. Residents have reported it to the police.
A survey of a nearby property had found three bat roosts, recorded after 2010, including evidence of Greater Horseshoe bats.
It is not yet known if a wildlife survey was carried out before the trees were cut down but it believed they were home to bats, owls and woodpeckers
How the garden looks now after the tall conifers, ash and oak were all felled in a day - MAX WILLCOCK/BNPS
The house, with its acre of land, had recently been bought by a developer when residents were woken at 7am to the sound of three excavators and tree surgeons starting work, bringing in lights as night fell and working until 9pm to clear the site.
Jackie Bonham, 55, has lived next to the property for 17 years and has described the shock of seeing the greenery destroyed.
She said: “Everyone is distressed and disturbed by this sudden and shocking development.
“I first knew about the work when my kitchen started shaking and all I could hear was chainsaws and machinery.
“As neighbours we expected some work to be done on the property but there was no planning application, so it came as a surprise to us all when we realised what was happening.
Gerrard Hayes and his neighbour Jackie Bonham, looking at one of his trees that got hacked before he brought a stop to it, standing on waste tree surgeons left behind - MAX WILLCOCK/BNPS
“We are all really upset, mainly for the wildlife who have lost their home and were not given a moment’s thought throughout the work.
“They completely destroyed an eco-system in one day and all the wildlife in it. It’s devastating.
“The previous owner, James White, loved his garden and it gave him life after his wife passed away. He would be devastated if he saw what it has become.
“On the day this policewoman came out and tried to ask them for any survey [of wildlife] and they said they’d email it through, a bat survey. They sent it the next day and it looked like a bit of paper they’d signed themselves.
“There’s bats in the area, so with historical evidence of bat activity it’s likely there are roosts nearby. When next door neighbours applied for planning permission on their garage they had to have a survey. Ten feet away they could take the huge conifer trees down with nothing.”
Local residents have been left devastated after developers turned a wooded wildlife haven into a barren landscape without warning - MAX WILLCOCK/BNPS
Neighbour and former soldier Gerrard Hayes, 83, said he went out to find one of his trees being hacked down before he put a stop to it.
He claims the work left the tree unsafe and alleges the tree surgeons tried to charge him £800 to fell it, even though they had caused the damage.
He said: “All I saw was a couple of workers starting to cut down my tree at the bottom of my garden that backs on to the site, I couldn’t believe it.
“They started cutting one side of the tree in my back garden before realising it was on my property and stopped.
‘Environmental vandalism’
“I told them they had left the tree unsafe and it could fall at any moment given a good gust of wind.
“They said I was liable if the tree killed someone and told me I’d have to pay £800 in cash in order for them to remove it, which I refused.
“My neighbour has told his children not to go near their shed in fear that the tree could fall on them at any time and severely injure them or worse.
Dorset Council said: “We haven’t received a planning application for the site. Land clearance would not be development within Dorset Council’s control and the trees were not subject to a tree preservation order.
“Damage to a protected habitat is a criminal offence and a police matter.” Dorset Police have been approached for comment.
This item is interesting as really the Pine marten should not have been where it was. We do know that there have been successful releases and litters around the UK of a mammal humans slaughtered on sight. But I have in my EAR files reports of pine martens in the 1990s and in the Somerset area where official groups told me (as if I was stupid so why report the matter) they were not.
My sources were credible and experience persons -one a naturalist. Where exactly were these sightings in Somerset? Not telling because back then, as now, we know that there are plenty of people wanting to get rid of them illegally and, of course, the 'sportsmen' who want a rarity.
But how did the Somerset pine martens escape the attention of the people who should know they were there? Simple; the "people who should know" were never told so could not take credit for the discovery and definitely could not, as they would have, given out a location. The other question is how long had the martens been at the locations? We had no idea because anyone who sighted them kept quiet and myself and the naturalist involved decided to not even snoop around the areas in case we were seen.
In the 1990s I discovered the open secret that a group had been breeding and releasing pairs of European wildcats around the country to fill in the niche left by the actual extinct wild cats (including on the Scottish borders). Who were these people? Where did they get these cats? Organisations in the "know" did know but claimed that they did not but were aware of these cats in the areas reported. It is also probable that this group released pine martens before the official release project.
Today I have heard of pine marten being bred for the "exotic animal" trade rather as porcupines, meerkats, raccoon dogs and others are. These animals do escape and I have reported on them in the past on the Exotic Animals Register blog as well as Face Book page.
Was this Scottish marten just lost or an escapee pet? It is highly probable that we will never know but I hope it finds suitable habitat soon.
Homeowner discovers ‘very rare’ predator lurking in their garden: ‘This may be a newsworthy sighting’
A Reddit user from Scotland recently spied a rare predator in their backyard.
They took to r/AnimalID to put a finger on the wily mammal, as it was threatening birds perched in the low limb of a tree.
In the 15-second video, the animal climbed atop a fence and looked around before scurrying away.
Photo Credit: u/Electronic_West2595 / Reddit
Users formed a consensus that the animal is a pine marten.
“It’s my understanding that those guys are currently very rare in Scotland,” one commenter wrote. “This may be a newsworthy sighting. I would strongly suggest you contact a local conservation agency and send them this footage. If he’s killing your birds they’ll likely relocate him for you.”
Another said: “Pretty cool to see them, they’re pretty shy most of the time. And rare these days.”
The creature was once found all over Britain, but it was hunted mercilessly until it was given legal protection in 1988, according to NatureScot. Scotland is now home to about 3,700 adult pine martens.
Pine martens prefer to live in woodlands, often in hollow trees, old squirrel, or old bird nests, and require 86 to 166 hectares (213 to 410 acres) of territory. They survive on rodents, birds, eggs, insects, and fruit.
“The Scottish Wildlife Trust has been running a successful pine marten recovery programme, and sightings of these elusive creatures are becoming more common,” according to Experience Scotland’s Wild.
The pine marten population in Northern Ireland is bouncing back as well, nearly doubling in five years, the BBC reported in May.
The species could also help the red squirrel population, as those native rodents have adapted to live among pine martens, while the invasive gray squirrel has not.
“They say that once a squirrel could run from one side of Europe to the other without touching the ground, leaping from tree to tree,” one user wrote. “And that he’d be followed the whole way by a hungry pine marten.”
Another said: “They are amazing creatures. Definitely bring any cats and small livestock indoors. Do not approach because they are sometimes cranky. Call a wildlife management official if you don’t want it around.”
The fact that wildlife rescues of varying sizes are closing down around the UK and that thousands of animals may suffer or simply face being put down for minor injuries does not interest the press and media. It just is not a "sexy" enough news story.
Now, someone running a wildlife rescue who has embezzled £190, 000 is a "very sexy" story worth posting everywhere.
With £190,000 Bristol could get the wildlife rescue it desperately needs. Any town or city could get a much needed sanctuary-cum-wildlife rescue. But yet another rescue is in the news and we know what stories like this do: it makes possible donators think that their money is going to be used for someone's personal gain and not in treating wildlife. Rather than give an over view of wildlife rescues to balance things out all they do is report on "the crook".
And what the **** was he thinking he was doing? He has now blighted any and every rescue going as people are not going to "throw money away" to embezzlers. And at a time when the fight for wildlife rescue and treatment is critical and people are already few and far between in helping rescues.
This is something we just do not need.
Wildlife sanctuary owner used £190,000 of donations to buy himself a house
Chris Tucker is a former animal rights activist who was jailed in 1992 for an attack on a McDonald’s restaurant - Simon Jones/News Group Newspapers Ltd
The owner of a wildlife sanctuary has been convicted of fraud after using tens of thousands of pounds of public donations to buy a house.
Chris Tucker, 59, a former animal rights activist who was jailed in 1992 for an attack on a McDonald’s restaurant, was convicted on Friday at Lewes Crown Court of fraudulently using £190,000 of public donations to pay for his own property. He is due to be sentenced next month.
The money was raised for Bexhill and Hastings Wildlife Rescue and Sanctuary between 2017 and January 2019, which Tucker claimed would help to secure his semi-detached house – where it is based – in a trust or community interest company.
He added that the money would be safeguarded officially for good causes and not benefit him or anyone else personally.
However, in November 2019, police received an allegation that Tucker had used the public-generated funds to buy out his ex-partner and take sole ownership of the property.
Tucker, of Chantry Avenue, Bexhill, was arrested and subsequently charged with fraud by false representation.
He denied the offence, but it was proven that he acted dishonestly in order to acquire a valuable property in his sole name.
After the verdict, Detective Constable Jake O’Reilly said: “In November 2019, Sussex Police were contacted following an allegation that Tucker had made promises to sign over his property to a trust which would oversee the future running of Bexhill and Hastings Wildlife Sanctuary and Rescue if enough money could be raised by supporters.
“When this amount was achieved, it was alleged that Tucker had then acted dishonestly and taken sole control of a large property where the rescue is based.
“The result of this fraud was that Tucker had acquired a large mortgage-free house and the rescue – which is not a registered charity – was not safeguarded by an independent trust which would make collective decisions on its future.”
‘Long and complex fraud enquiry’
Police Investigator Peters, who pieced together the investigation between 2019 and 2023, added: “This was a long and complex fraud enquiry involving a vast amount of donations and donors who were not given a true account of what would happen to their money. I am pleased justice has been served.”
On Monday 9 October, at Hove Crown Court, Tucker was further convicted of one count of contempt of court in relation to messages posted on social media, which he pleaded guilty to, and his sentencing was adjourned to Friday 10 November 2023.
In 1992, Tucker was jailed for 15 months after he terrorised staff and customers by throwing what appeared to be a bomb across the counter of a crowded McDonald’s restaurant in Kensington, west London.
The court heard that Tucker, who had several previous convictions involving animal rights activities, threw the canister after asking a staff member whether they killed animals in the restaurants.
After he was convicted, Tucker was banned from entering all McDonald’s restaurants in Britain.
Last night, Tucker told the Telegraph that he was ashamed of his past, adding: “I admit what I did at McDonald’s was disgusting and inexcusable. I should never have done it.”
He said he was now making arrangements to sign over half of his house to the wildlife charity.
People ask whether rats are a problem in the UK? The simple answer is yes. The brown (Rattus norvegicus) and black (Rattus rattus ) rats are the only two species in the UK if we ignore the number of exotic rodents being bred here and just concentrate on the wild ones. We can only estimate so a figure may be exaggerated but the one seemingly accepted is a population of 250 million.
Even with a suggested lifespan of only 2-3 years a female rat typically births six litters a year consisting of up to 12 rat pups, although 5-10 pups are more common. Rats reach sexual maturity after nine weeks, meaning that a population can swell from two rats to around 1,250 in one year, with the potential to grow exponentially.
The natural predator of the rat in the countryside, villages, towns and cities are the cat (these days feral cats probably take more rats than pet cats) and the fox. Owls and hawks will also take rats and this is where the problems begin for wildlife because the solution of most local authorities is to use rodenticides and secondary poisoning of predators is a major problem.
If you listen to pest control companies, who have a large financial interest in the matter, rodenticides are the best solution. I have had three pest control officers from Bristol tell me to my face that the poison they use does not affect wildlife and no other animal can be affected by ingesting poisoned rats. An outright lie. By supermarkets and shops you tend to see metal boxes attached to lamp posts and these are designed so that if the rat enters it is "zapped" and killed.
There is one shopping area near me where these traps are always smashed. I found out that locals were doing this as curious small birds were entering the traps and being killed and the final straw was an electrocuted hedgehog. Figures on small wildlife killed by these traps is not available and if you try to search for that information all you will get is page after page of pest control adverts, recommendations. People on The Red Island tend not to care because "out of sight out of mind".
There are various mouse and rat traps that can maim and leave a rodents to die slowly and the larger traps, as with the "zappers" and these are again deadly to small mammals.
Back in the 1970s I was reading in a German magazine how a small town had cut its rat population right down and I guessed more poisoning and trapping but I was wrong. Someone had suggested, and the local authority approved the idea, that bait with some chemical in it be placed out for rats and the chemical was a contraceptive one. I have tried over the years to find the article or the town and failed -even with the internet. The question is whether it is better to sell off the shelf rodenticides to the public who have no idea how to use it or for local authorities to employ pest control people who then use rodenticide or use something that will affect the rats and no other wildlife?
Yes, pest controllers are heavily invested in the use of poisons so that would affect their livelihood but at this point in time we have to start thinking about wildlife which is being killed in droves as well as the effect on the environment. I have already discussed elsewhere how you can get rats out of your home without poison here
And research work has been carried out of how to use a contraceptive in bait to deal with rodents and there is a paper on the matter -Fertility Control for Wildlife: A European Perspective by Giovanna Massei https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9913817/
Quote:
"ContraPest® is a liquid contraceptive designed to reduce fertility in rats and delivered in a tray, placed inside a box, to minimise use by non-target species [78]. ContraPest suppresses fertility in males, by preventing sperm maturation and motility, and in females, by decreasing the number of eggs that are ovulated [79,80]. This contraceptive must be delivered daily for at least 50 days in order to inhibit production of litters for around three successive breeding rounds, as shown in captive studies with Norway rats [81,82]. In this species ContraPest decreased the weight of reproductive organs but had no effect on adrenal, kidney, spleen and liver weights compared to control animals [82]. The efficacy and potential side effects of ContraPest on free-living rats has not been reported, as only information on the efficacy of ContraPest combined with a rodenticide is available [78].
"EP-1, based on synthetic steroids, has been proved to inhibit the fertility of males and females of many rodent species in China, Tanzania, Zambia, and Indonesia [83,84,85,86,87] in captivity and field trials. In several species, a treatment period of about 7 days in laboratory studies or a single baiting with EP-1 in field conditions, are sufficient to induce infertility [87]. In females the most common response to EP-1 is an enlargement of the uterus which result in reduced conceptions and/or litter sizes. In males EP-1 inhibits the function of the testis, epididymis and seminal vesicles for different periods of time depending on the dose [75,87] and in both sexes the effects are temporary and fully reversible. Side effects of these synthetic hormones in rodents include production of smaller pups in striped field mice (Apodemus agrarius) dosed with EP-1 [88] and in Brandt’s vole (Lasiopodomys brandtii) treated with quinestrol [74]. EP-1, widely tested on many rodent species, has not been used in field trials in Europe and its use might not be acceptable until the potential effects of the hormones on the food chain and on the environment have been assessed."
References cited
77. Pellizzari M. Control of pigeon numbers through contraception. Internat. Pest Control. 2017;59:20–22.[Google Scholar]
78. Pyzyna B.R., Trulove N.F., Mansfield C.H., McMillan R.A., Ray C.N., Mayer L.P. ContraPest®, A new tool for rodent control. In: Woods D.M., editor. Proceedings of the 28th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California; Davis, CA, USA: 2018. pp. 284–286. [Google Scholar]
79. Mayer L.P., Pearsall N.A., Christian P.J., Devine P.J., Payne C.M., McCuskey M.K., Hoyer P.B. Long-term effects of ovarian follicular depletion in rats by 4-vinylcyclohexene diepoxide. Reprod. Toxicol. 2002;16:775–781. doi: 10.1016/S0890-6238(02)00048-5. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
81. Witmer G.W., Raymond-Whish S., Moulton R.S., Pyzyna B.R., Calloway E.M., Dyer C.A., Mayer L.P., Hoyer P.B. Compromised fertility in free feeding of wild-caught Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) with a liquid bait containing 4-vinylcyclohexene diepoxide and triptolide. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2017;48:80–90. doi: 10.1638/2015-0250.1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
82. Witmer G.W., Raymond-Whish S. Reduced fecundity in free-ranging Norway rats after baiting with a liquid fertility control bait. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 2021;15:111–123.[Google Scholar]
83. Imakando C., Fernández-Grandon M., Singleton G.R., Belmain S.R. Impact of fertility vs. mortality control on the demographics of Mastomys natalensis in maize fields. Integr. Zool. 2021;17:1028–1040.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84. Selemani M., Makundi R., Massawe A.W., Mhamphi G., Mulungu L.S., Belmain S.R. Impact of contraceptive hormones on the reproductive potential of male and female commensal black rats (Rattus rattus) Integr. Zool. 2021;17:991–1001. doi: 10.1111/1749-4877.12563. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
85. Stuart A.M., Herawati N.A., LIU M., Zhang Z., Singleton G.R., Hinds L.A. Reproductive responses of rice field rats (Rattus argentiventer) following treatment with the contraceptive hormones, quinestrol and levonorgestrol. Integr. Zool. 2022;17:1017–1027. doi: 10.1111/1749-4877.12598. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
86. Massawe A.W., Makundi R.H., Zhang Z., Mhamphi G., Liu M., Li H.J., Belmain S.R. Effect of synthetic hormones on reproduction in Mastomys natalensis. J. Pest Sci. 2018;91:157–168. doi: 10.1007/s10340-017-0894-4.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
87. Liu M., Wan X., Yin Y., Li Y.X., Sun F., Zhang Z., Wang Y.L. Subfertile effects of quinestrol and levonorgestrel in male rats. Reprod. Fertil. Develop. 2012;24:297–308. doi: 10.1071/RD10221. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Schol
Local authorities claiming to have a credible environmental stance need to step up and this is probably one of the easiest solutions to preventing wildlife deaths and damage to the environment while taking care of rats.
It is a win-win solution unless there is heavy investing in pest control for financial gain.
