PayPal Donation Link

PayPal Donation Link
PayPal Donations For continued research into British foxes and canids world wide

Wednesday, 12 June 2024

Why did Natural England order a badger cull against its own scientific advice?

 As I have repeatedly stated for over two decades now the badger cull IS down to political corruption and this from the Badger Trust reveals the extent of the corruption for political ends and votes.



https://www.badgertrust.org.uk/post/why-did-natural-england-order-a-badger-cull-against-its-own-scientific-advice?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1DBmV9bnuSdIF6VVd3pqt6sxFJ_V7u21rMTRQHdRnvOGZiDgek-Ht8mgU_aem_AaR8Vl41gNj_2xMTkitSQwx2sjZnNHqvJdrdmt1medW7wW6ArWg3shoOThYcuJ7QMxkJaaT6ufiUlY4ql4KJVr7H

Badger Trust analyses the release of Natural England documents



The confidential documents also revealed that Defra wanted to continue to pursue the cull to keep the farming industry onside despite the lack of evidence of its effectiveness at reducing bTB in cattle.


Today, we release those documents to you in full so that you can read the exchange of information. We also share our analysis of the documents.  


Advice to Natural England’s Operations Team on Supplementary Badger Culling 2024


Advice to Natural England’s Operations Team on Supplementary Badger Culling 2024
.pdf
Download PDF • 316KB


In April, Natural England's Director of Science wrote in an internal letter to Natural England staff:


Over the past few years, the balance of evidence has shifted. In my opinion it is now clear that badger vaccination can provide an effective alternative to SBC [supplementary badger cull]”


NE’s Director of Science also pointed out that cattle measures could be used to reduce bTB in cattle and give farmers control over the disease. He said this needed to be communicated more clearly and positively to the farming community:


in my opinion, the evidence is clear that the steps that farmers and others have already taken, alongside continued on-farm biosecurity, management practices and other cattle measures, are likely to provide a long-lasting disease reduction benefit that will persist until other options for disease control can be implemented. Consequently, these farmers can avoid the considerable expense and inconvenience of undertaking the SBC [supplementary badger cull] without increasing the risk of their cattle suffering from bTB. This is good news for farmers, and I hope it can be clearly communicated as such.”


He also noted his disappointment that a recent paper by APHA scientists was being misquoted as leading to a 56% reduction in bTB due to badger culling, ignoring the other cattle-based measures that were being implemented:


As I have said in previous advice, much greater effort is needed to raise awareness of the

disease reduction benefits of the alternatives to culling among the farmer community, in my

opinion. In this regard, it is disappointing that the recent publication by Birch et al. 2024 has

been widely reported as providing evidence that badger culling reduces the incidence of bTB

by 56%, when in fact the study shows the overall impact of implementing a range of bTB

control measures, not culling alone. Further research to establish the relative disease

reduction contributions of the different control measures is needed.”


Defra’s letter to Natural England 1 May 2024


2. Defra Letter to Natural England 1 May 2024
.pdf
Download PDF • 192KB

A letter from Defra to Natural England, dated 1st May, revealed that continuing the cull was part of a political strategy to maintain positive relationships and support from the farming industry on future disease control efforts:


Changes need to be carefully timed and communicated, whilst balancing a range of potentially opposing views. Any abrupt changes to policy would seriously undermine our ability to engage constructively with the industry on future disease control interventions.”


This letter shows that the decision to allow the supplementary cull is not evidence-based.  Instead, it is politically motivated to continue to receive support from a particular sector of the industry lobby.


The letter also pursued several points unrelated to the scientific evidence they wanted Natural England to consider in deciding whether to allow supplementary cull licences this year.  


Several points referred to badger vaccination and the low confidence and uptake from the farming industry to successfully achieve this at the scale needed to make it successful. 


A significant barrier to badger vaccination uptake has been the strong anti-badger rhetoric that has been pursued for many years.  This, coupled with a resistance to pivoting away from killing badgers and focusing on cattle measures at a policy level, has continued to impact farming industry attitudes towards badgers:


social research on farmer attitudes towards badger vaccination revealed that trust in

government is a critical factor to farmer receptiveness to the method [badger vaccination]”.


The documents reveal a policy that needs to offer farmers some form of badger control, whether culling or vaccination. However, this approach incorrectly focuses on badgers as the primary driver for the spread of bTB in cattle.  


With over 94% of bTB spread from cattle-cattle, the evidence points to a need for far more focus on better cattle measures, including more sensitive (reliable) testing, cattle vaccination and biosecurity, measures that can genuinely have a positive impact on permanently reducing bTB in cattle.  


Natural England letter to Defra 10 May 2024


3. Official Sensitive bTB Letter and decision 10 May 2024
.pdf
Download PDF • 262KB

On 10th May, Natural England responded to the letter through its Chief Executive, ignoring its own scientific review against the supplementary cull licences.  It gave what we believe to be inappropriate weight to political pressure from Defra and granted the licences.  Natural England did, however, emphasise its view that alternatives to culling are available:


We believe there is now sound evidence that badger vaccination can be considered as an alternative to supplementary culling in localised areas and that more targeted interventions may also offer a further alternative in the future.”


Natural England went on to say: 


“We ask however that Defra and APHA now prioritise progress in further assessment, planning for delivery and industry engagement to build confidence around the implementation of alternatives by 2026, when culling will end as the primary mechanism for disease reduction. Our position is that we should not be culling protected species for any longer than is necessary to achieve the policy aims of eradicating this disease.


However, when answering the question, ‘will the conservation status of the species be harmed?’, we believe that Natural England is being overly optimistic in their response:


While SBC [Supplementary Badger Cull] licences aim to maintain badger populations at a lower level following intensive culls, there is good evidence that populations will survive prolonged culling and are expected to recover following licensed culling. The SBC methodology is specifically designed to prevent local extinctions, with regular reviews in place to ensure numbers are sustainable.”


There are no population models or reliable monitoring in place that we know of that can back up this claim.


From Freedom of Information (FOI) requests that Badger Trust has conducted, we know the cull companies that kill badgers are the same organisations responsible for ensuring badgers don’t face local extinction.  This places a huge bias on the reliability of the data, and if the species can survive prolonged culling.  This is, in part, what has led us to conduct our own monitoring through our State of the Badger research project


We also know from local reports that localised extinction events of badgers are already occurring. This is further backed up by the fact that last year many areas could not find enough badgers to kill.


Natural England’s cull consultation response April 2024


4. NE response - badger cull consultation April 2024
.pdf
Download PDF • 43KB

We also reviewed Natural England’s response to the recent government consultation on targeted badger intervention policy.  Natural England correctly identified the need for greater emphasis on cattle biosecurity measures:


we recommend that scope to effectively address any risk to cattle posed by TB in badgers by using vaccination and / or biosecurity measures is assessed before resorting to culling. The present plan, as described in paragraph 5.8, implies that the policy objective (to secure disease control benefits by reducing the potential for infectious contacts between badgers and cattle in cluster areas) will be achieved solely by culling. It is our advice that vaccination and / or biosecurity measures should be considered as alternatives to culling”.


They continued to highlight the science and show that other measures are sufficient to reduce bTB in cattle, without culling badgers:


Vaccination and biosecurity in combination, especially following recent culling under the Badger Control Policy, may therefore be sufficient to reduce the contribution to TB infection made by badgers without further culling.’


And, they pointedly declared that cattle measures must be a condition of badger culling, implying that badger culling alone will not work at reducing bTB in cattle:


We anticipate that where culling is approved, the effective application of reasonable biosecurity measures will be a requirement to further reduce the risk of infectious contacts, as well as vigorous application of cattle measures.”


They also emphasised that all wildlife can spread bTB to cattle, and without cattle measures in place, culling badgers would have little effect:


At present, the policy appears to assume that badgers are the only source of infection risk to cattle from wildlife.”


Like us, Natural England also highlighted the gaps and lack of information in the consultation.


Badger Trust believes it’s now time for Defra and Natural England to come clean and admit that badger culling is a politically driven policy and not based on scientific evidence. 

Nature is under threat like never before, and 230,000 dead badgers in 11 years is the price paid for this horrendous and ineffective policy.  The badger cull has to end with immediate effect.

Sunday, 26 May 2024

Do People REALLY Care About Wildlife in the UK? Rarely.

 I have been told that at times I "appear" to be a little "intense" when it comes to wildlife conservation and that I also appear more interested in animal welfare. Yes. Can someone point out where the problem is?



 If there is one thing I have learnt it is that people with a love of foxes are either the "get hands dirty" types who run rescues and try to help foxes (let's call them Type 1's) or the "I learnt everything from You Tube" and these can often cause more grief with bad feeding of foxes and habituation and if they set up a kitchen sink 'rescue' foxes are more at risk of harm than getting real help (these we'll call Type 2's).

The same applies to people who love badgers. There are the type 1's who are hindered by certain stupid regulations. For one; if a sow badger is dead next to a sett and there are starving pups in the sett they must be left there. You know the mother is dead and that means a slow death for the cubs but you must not under punishment of huge fines or prison sentence get the cubs out of the sett to save them. However much they squeal you have to wait for two things: the cubs to die or for them to leave the sett. Yes, once they leave the sett you can help them. Now here is where we have to remember that 300,000+ badgers, an alleged protected species, can be legally killed based on bad science and political corruption to a point where the population is on a speedy descent to extinction but you try to save cubs whose mother has been killed (usually by a car) and you are a criminal.

I was asked what I would do in that situation? I would break the law.

We can help fox cubs that are dying at an alarming rate while their parents are killed by 'sports shooters', farmers, killed by cars etc, etc., etc.. Even the British Trust for Ornithology after its mammal survey suggested now was the time to red list foxes (just as we did hedgehogs) because the population is on a very steep decline and like the badgers, that we must not, help are heading for extinction by the 2030s.



Humans are the greatest threat to the environment and wildlife and even with warning after warning about current species from mammals to birds heading for "The Big E" no one is listening. Back in the late 1700s and into the early 1800s 'sportsmen' and 'sportsmen-naturalists' were all reporting on the decline of the native British fox types and even stating that extinction seemed inevitable so what did they do? They carried on killing the foxes for the 'fun' of their 'sport' until...Old foxes gone. Not to worry as they did what they had done since at least the early 1700s and that was to import more so that the 'sport' might continue.

People are still badger baiting as well as shooting them on the quiet (often through the local "badger man") but snares and poison are still a staple of "getting rid of them" for no reason other than not liking wild animals on "my land".  This is often organised and a crime but on the whole the police shrug and say "no proof" so perhaps they ought to do some policing?

Foxes are shot with no controls in place and although a land owner is supposedly only allowed to "deal with" a fox that threatens live stock foxes have proven to be no threat to sheep or lambs and even the 'great sportsmen' of the past who went out and studied this rejected the claim and their large reward for anyone bringing in evidence to prove this was not claimed by the early 1900s. 



A fox walking along near a village or housing estate hunting rats or rabbits is not a threat under any description. In fact it is controlling the rodent population and reducing the need for all poisoning rodenticides. Even when it is cub season these people will kill a fox whether vixen lactating or not. It's their 'fun' and so what if foxes become extinct they can move on to other wildlife or even 'fun' shooting the odd wandering pet cat (which happens more frequently than you might want to think).

A wildlife looks very green and pleasant and so developers obviously want to build on that and local authorities (such as in Bristol) will twist and turn to try top push through developments and a blind eye is often turned towards fox dens and badger setts ("Oh, we had no ideas they were there"), In cities and towns the green spaces are vitally important not just for wildlife but also people -"little oases away from the concrete".

I was once offered an office at a college in the UK for my ongoing work on exotic species in the UK that attracted a lot of press and media attention. Then it was discovered that I was not a university graduate so "perhaps not a good idea" 😂

With foxes and diseases a great deal is being found out through the Bristol Fox Deaths Project and when any research on UK wildlife is published by researchers then the chances of getting a copy of the paper is never available to people who are not part of the "club" -I have a big folder full of papers on fox health, possible diseases, etc., and they are all from EU or American research which is distributed free online as part of "free to educate" policies which the UK sadly does not bother with.  Anything our project discovers will be publicly as well as professionally available.



The Type 1 fox people need to be as informed as they can be because wildlife groups in general are not keen on foxes or badgers unless it is a photo opp or way to promote themselves. Large mammals such as foxes and badgers and even deer are seen as the "nasty types" that get in the way of the "pretty" butterflies, moths, birds and wild flowers. Type 1's in both fox and badger work often get threats, abuse and a whole lot more just because they are helping species no one cares about -300,000 badgers killed and heading for extinction and the "nation of animal lovers" is not up in arms (but a "lonely looking sheep" gets thousands of demands for it to be rescued?).

The UK is The Blood Red Island for a very obvious reason. Our wildlife protection laws and prosecutions against those breaking the 'laws' are a mess.  When it comes to a land owner whether some rich business man or royal there should be no protection from prosecution over wildlife crimes. 

We need a genuine wildlife crimes force that does not consist of local men who give a nod and wink to locals involved in crimes. A wildlife crimes force that is given full authorisation to enter private land when a wildlife crime is reported and suspected and whoever is involved should be prosecuted under new laws. Will this ever happen? Doubtful since most politicians tend to look at what is good for themselves rather than the environment and wildlife.

We are watching species vanishing and quite literally shrugging it off or just ignoring it as someone else's problem.

Monday, 20 May 2024

Water Sources Are VERY Important for Wildlife



image (c)2024 Marcus Wherle

 I have a large bird bath in the back garden as well as a large dog water bowl. In the front garden are four dog water bowls -cleaned out regularly and always topped up. Hedgehogs soak up a lot of water after feeding and we know foxes (adults and cubs) can become easily dehydrated.

Hedgehogs

 


Sunday, 19 May 2024

You Want To Get Into Wildlife Work?

  


1.  There is the need to listen and learn. You may have read books or watched TV shows but this is reality.

2.   You will NOT make any money out of wildlife work and in fact you will find it can suck every last penny out of you.

3.   Always keep hard copy files. PCs and Laptops crash and lose all your data.

4.   There are some good moments when you get to help wildlife but.....

5.   It can be gut-wrenching, heart breaking and make you want to give up more often than you think possible.

Took me 50 years to learn those lessons.

Saturday, 18 May 2024

Red Squirrels. Grey Squirrels, Extinctions, Dogma and Continued Extermination

 Back on 14th March, 2021 I posted an item titled This Is HUMAN aided Evolution NOT "Invasive Species"  and in this I discussed the fact that so many Old British wildlife had hit extinction by the 1860s.  If you read the books and publications of the 19th century this is stated and also hinted at.  My thanks also to my colleague LM.

We know that the Old fox species as well as the Old wild cat species had declined so much through hunting that they became extinct circa the 1860s. At the same time hunting had wiped out of populations to the point that they became extinct.  We know that the hare population dropped so low that in some parts of the UK hares had to be imported to continue the hare coursing 'sport'.  In other regions deer also declined and more were imported from Europe -this is all a matter of historical record.

Even today, the estimated hare population of 579,000 is probably a vast over estimate or an outright fake figure to give the impression that hunting has no effect on population. There are some pro-hunt groups using grand titles including "conservation" who have only one interest and that is to include blood sports.As far as hares go:

""GB Red List: n/a. Although a species of conservation concern, brown hares have minimal legal protection because they're considered a game species and can be shot throughout the year, including through their breeding season. They are the only game species in the UK without a closed season (when hunting is prohibited)."

We know that there are many 'fun' shooters who basically go o9ut nightly to find something to kill so they will undoubtedly take hares without even considering that there may be young that will die because the mother was killed.  And the same thing that wiped out other species is occurring now and that is breeding pairs are killed so..no new generation.  Farmers also shoot hares and even some who profit from it by selling to taxidermists and taxidermists selling on:

It is quite safe to say the hare population is not at the levels claimed and killing for 'fun' as well as financial gain is rife.

Which brings us to the subject of squirrels and particularly red squirrels. I have been accused several times of falsely stating red squirrels were introduced to the UK after the Old Red squirrels were wiped out. Apparently I am using that to justify Grey squirrels being here. This is, of course, the usual uneducated drivel people keep putting out to deny whatever they want; in this case it is 'fact' in their minds (many knowing it is an outright lie) that grey squirrels have wiped out red squirrels.  These people have obviously not carried out even  basic research.
From my 2021 post:

"A few home truths first: humans introduced the grey squirrel mainly as a novelty specimen for estates and menageries. As with other human interferences with nature an unnatural evolution took place. What they like to call the "survival of the fittest" -though this is only applied when it is an animal humans want to encourage for some reason.

photo (c)2024 respective copyright owner

"Another truth is that humans -game keepers, country squires and the wood industry have been trapping, snaring, poisoning and shooting red squirrels for a long time ("shooting a few brace before lunch"  -"brace" being a pair- was a little bit of 'fun sport'.  From 1977 until DEFRA attempted to stop my being a Partner Against Wldlife Crimes (PAWS) in 2015 (police forces do still consult me) I had to speak to pest controllers, game keepers, estate managers, farmers and estate owners and one after another would refer to the "pests" or "vermin" they had to take care of and one of these was the red squirrel. 

"Why the squirrels?" I would ask. "Vermin" was the response 99% of the time but the other 1% found it a "fun shoot". I soon became aware that local authorities, DEFRA and the police were turning a blind eye using a few down pat excuses about private property etc. Red squirrels are classed a endangered and even the Young Peoples Trust For the Environment continues the lie of the grey menace.

https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/squirrel-red/territory

In 1945 there was a huge red squirrel population compared to that of the grey as this map from Wildlife Trusts demonstrates https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/saving-species/red-squirrels

Red squirrels distribution map


Red and grey squirrels distribution in the British Isles in 1945 and 2010. © Craig Shuttleworth/RSST

photo (c)2024 respective copyright owner

So how did the Greys start winning so much territory from the Reds and why? Simple; following the as outlined in The Gazette  https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/102333

"The Forestry Commission was founded to restore the nation’s timber reserves in the wake of World War 1. Here's how 100 years of forestry has helped to shape our landscape.

In September 1919, the first Forestry Act, which created the Forestry Commission and recognised the importance of forestry to the UK, came into force.

The beginnings

By the end of World War 1, the UK’s timber supply was much depleted. Britain’s forests had already suffered a steady decline since the Middle Ages, and the additional strain of the war – especially trench warfare – left the nation’s woodlands in a state of disrepair.

From a countryside that was once largely forest, just 5 per cent of tree cover remained, and urgent action was required to address growing concerns.

In 1918, the Acland Committee reported to then prime minister, David Lloyd George, that an organisation with state backing would be the most effective way of restoring and restocking the nation’s forests.

On 1 September 1919, the Forestry Act came in to force, establishing the Forestry Commission and granting it responsibility to look after woods across England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (Gazette issue 31837).

By Christmas of the same year, the first Forestry Commission trees had been planted at Eggesford in Devon, turning the tide for post-war woodlands, and paving the way for the future of forestry in Britain.

Post-war planting

In the years that followed, the Commission was given the confidence and freedom to focus on acquiring and planting new woodland. Hundreds of thousands of acres were planted, but more turbulent times lay ahead.

As tensions mounted across Europe, the Commission had to draw up felling plans in the event of another war. The Forest of Dean and New Forest were hit hardest, and while scores of trees were felled, the Commission continued to expand; growing its workforce and planting more forests.

The subsequent decades witnessed a dramatic increase in productivity for the Commission, as forests were expanded due to fuel demand for a burgeoning timber trade.

Technologies and mechanical equipment simultaneously improved, alongside a growing awareness of public recreation needs, and the importance of conservation for wildlife and the environment.

Woodland grants schemes, which had existed since the formation of the Commission, evolved and provided different incentives. These included awards for broadleaf planting, and for landowners who considered public access"


"Despite all the talk of preserving red squirrel habitat the one thing officials and various  organisations keep quiet about is "the squirrel as a pest" -damage to young saplings and mature "timber" -business and estates lose money. Get rid of the squirrels while 'protecting' habitats (until the wood there is needed).

"The Grey squirrel is often cited as the "perfect example" of what authorities like to term "invasive species" and these need "eradication" (killing). Odd that the red squirrel population is stabilising and not just due to the mass killings of grey squirrels.  Greys have found towns and gardens far better habitats -bird feeders and a very wide selection of foods.  Last year the squirrels coming to my garden had young but their nesting area was in the same set of conifers as collared dove and a magpie nest. The magpies moved out so you might think the collared dove nests did not last long. However, the collared doves had a record number of young -the local population has seen an increase in a year and at one point earlier this year some 8-12 could be found on my feeders. The squirrels had good food supplies including my prized lilies (it took 10 years before they flowered and last year six were ready to flower but in the space of an early morning all the flowers were eaten) but if you set up a wildlife garden...."


When I wrote the above I was misled since the red squirrel population has not started recovering. In fact under the disguise of "rewilding" and "re-introducing species" pine marten have been introduced into areas populated by red squirrel and even polecats. Pine marten and introduced wild cats will make a dent in any squirrel population so add them to humans and the likelihood that red squirrels are recovering seems dubious.  

However, the unproven statements of red squirrel recovery are readily accepted by the public who really do not care that much anyway; I cite the fact that foxes are now on a very steep population decline and that 3000,000 badgers have been legally killed for political and not scientific reasons and.. not big protest from the nation of animal lovers). 

Red squirrels are still secretly available for taxidermists to buy and rarer white and black squirrels on one Hampshire estate ...well, taxidermists are jumping at the chance to buy any examples killed and there are fixed price lists that they have so this is a thriving business. Again, taxidermists stamping their feet and claiming this does not happen -we have recorded the evidence and those selling and buying and on what platform. Sadly, as before, humans will be pushing red squirrels to extinction and their species to blame is sorted -the grey squirrel.  Greys are shot in droves by Red Squirrel preservation groups and there are some dirty secrets there.

Look at this Annual statement of the Highland Squirrel Club for the year ending 31st December, 1917. The club had some 41 members who owned approximately 43,660 acres of woods and paid subscriptions totalling £48 1s 9d. There were 3,998 squirrels killed on these estates for which bonuses of £49 19s 6d were paid.  The main reason was, of course, the 'fun' of shooting animals but they also saw the red squirrel as a threat along the same lines as grey squirrels are today. Rather like foxes, etc., etc., etc., red squirrels were wiped out, re-introduced and then faced several near extinctions. 

Take this as just one example as not all reintroductions were public or even widely publicised as it was no one else's business. In 1844, Lady Lovat persuaded the government to re-introduce red squirrels in the Highlands. However, typically, their numbers multiplied rapidly as in fact did their outward migration. Guess what? In response to the damage caused to woodlands, a Highland Squirrel Club was formed with the purpose of hunting, trapping, and killing the squirrels. Financial incentives were provided for those who sent in squirrel tails. There is a very ironic side to this all story and that is that it was the Lovat Estate which exterminated the highest numbers

 For further information about this item and the collection to which it belongs, please email the Highland Archive Service

PERIOD: 1910s

SOURCE: Highland Archive Centre

COLLECTION: Highland Squirrel Club 1916-1920 /



Above a chart showing the number of squirrels killed from 1903 to 1941and below Highland Squirrel Club Report for 1917 p 2


There can be no denying that red squirrels were wiped out, reintroduced and wiped out again  until some clung on and out of the way of the gunmen. It is interesting to see just how the Red squirrel was described as a threat in the same way modern advocates describe the Grey and the solution is always the same; kill them.  

This is the Blood Red Island where humans wiped out species by the score, reintroduced the species again to once more wipe out and from the early 20th century on an outright campaign was launched to wipe out the true history of what was done and this has become dogma.  Very little of what we find in the UK today whether bird or mammal is going to not be found with European DNA of that species.   To actually state DNA and other study conclusions as fact and showing that British species of today are and always have been the same as those of Europe is pure nonsense. Yes, the DNA results are correct for the 21st century but pre-1900, if you could find any remnants of Old British species of deer or hare, they would have been different. Old foxes and Old wild cats as well as the Old wolves that were wiped out would have all been unique island species but the wolf was killed to extinction first and the fox and wild cat almost simultaneously.

The extinctions/near extinctions of wildlife in countries far away are always popular to point to and pompously spout "we must help you save your native wildlife -once it is gone it is gone forever!"  Coming from people who are employed at museums and universities this is all rather rich and perhaps they ought to look at the UKs wildlife history?

 People in glass houses should not throw stones"

Tuesday, 14 May 2024

Pine Martens and DNA

 We know from statements and observations that pine marten were in Somerset in the 1990s and may well have been some of the released pairs.



BBC      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-68978455?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0HuoxshRx7OrPY35ug6CGa-8Z0eaY5yU9oRsJ7EexrGeWgvUhZIuFKfUY_aem_AdVOwPYTDQMyDmCiwe9xzHMFXcfUEfM3RX_p6u-uJ33k3N3aWYbeici6vTwYUdGvuagDh4uC2ptxe7kwdtrHFjfR

DNA samples from elusive pine martens are being collected as part of a study in the New Forest.

The rare mammals are now believed to be well-established and successfully breeding in the national park.

The elusive cat-sized member of the weasel family was previously only thought to have survived largely in the north of England.

Researchers are collecting genetic material in order to establish the health of the population in the forest.

Pipes lined with velcro
Image caption,

Pipes lined with velcro are used to get hair samples from pine martens

Hidden cameras have shown young pine martens exploring and playing together over a number of years.

The footage was shot as part of a study aiming to determine if and how pine martens were recolonising the area.

Marcus Ward of Wild New Forest said the latest phase, collecting hair samples using pipes lined with velcro, would provide an "insight" into the forest's pine martens.

"The main thing we are looking at is the genetic diversity of the population and how healthy the population is," he said.

"By getting DNA, it unlocks other bits of information which is useful and helps us piece together our understanding of pine martens in the New Forest."

Marcus Ward
Image caption,

Marcus Ward of Wild New Forest has been carrying out the study into pine martens in the forest

The video footage showed pine martens prefer to use fallen trees and branches to navigate across the forest floor and to cross streams and wet areas.

The creatures sleep and make dens high up in the trees and usually only come out at night to hunt.

The pine marten study is being carried out by Wild New Forest along with Forestry England, The New Forest Study Group, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust.

Hedgehogs, like the Fox and Badger, Heading for Extinction

    People keep posting online and saying that hedgehogs are recovering after being Red Listed. I keep telling them that the species has not...