Can We Win When 'Wildlife' Groups Encourage Animal Endangerment? The Story of Badger Watch UK

Boris the Badger and Friends is a Face Book page that promotes the habituation and hand feeding of badgers in close proximity to the actual badger sett. On the 2nd April 2024 the man posted a video of him sitting amongst a group of 6-7 badgers and hand feeding.

I had previously (twice) been very polite and asked him to stop as he was habituating badgers to humans and the hand feeding is something that really ought to be made illegal.

Sitting near a sett and hand feeding badgers -"only one ever comes close" (c)2024 Boris the Badger

His constant response is that the "badger" only came out shyly to him. This was a lie because all of the badgers in the video he talks about how several were climbing over him. Previous videos showed the same thing.  I decided that a much firmer approach to the problem was needed and pointed out that his activities were putting the badgers safety at risk. I also pointed out that using his ISP it was possible to track down his street and from there work out where badgers might be.  I pointed out that, legally, he was interfering with a badger sett and that could involve his being prosecuted. I ended by asking him to PLEASE stop what he was doing.

Then I received this notification along with its rather immature added note. 

 I sent a copy of this notification to all three admins but one blocks any messages so great admin there! There seemed to be no sense in this since I was listed as a "top contributor" on Badger Watch UK -in fact I was the only person actively helping people with badger issues. I assumed there must be an error somewhere.Here is what I sent the only two admins who were contactable:

"I am writing to you as an Admin on Badger Watch UK. It seems that I am accused of "threatening a member" I will make it clear that I did not threaten to do anything other than to report the danger he was putting wildlife -badgers- in and breaking the law at the same time. We need to protect badgers and stop them from being habituated to humans. Sitting on the ground near a badger sett and feeding the badgers in the way he has videoed is also ethically wrong. I deal with badgers killed because they do not see humans as a threat and the member in question may well be a "star" but he is not helping badgers and I am shocked that admins feel pointing this out is threatening. Humans, whoever they are, cannot be encouraged to do this when we urge people to report people around protected badger setts. "

Krister Ardem and admin: "Telling someone you've traced their address via their ISP is definitely threatening"

So I replied and suspect I am going to be kicked off because the attitude was very odd:

"No it was pointing out that it is not hard to use that to track what street he is on and use that to pinpoint where likely locations of badgers are. That is alerting him to how easy the wrong people can find badgers if they want to. I DID NOT state I had tracked his address just that the ISP leads to info that shows his street. That is not a legal definition of a threat but safety warning. The issue here is that this is irresponsible behaviour not good for the badgers. Surely that can be seen? I have alerted Face Book and sent copies of my posts and the video clip I saved and explained that I have been banned for 24 hours because I take an accusation of threatening someone seriously as does FB who pick up these things. If you would sooner have anti wildlife behaviour videos to trying to explain to people how to keep badgers safe then the fight to save badgers is lost."

Krister Ardem "You said you'd traced his street in less than 30 minutes. He's been working with badgers for more than 40 years so why be so attacking and not discuss amicably? Now you're trying to threaten BWUK admins for muting you as a punishment, saying you've disagreed with what is clearly intimidating behaviour. I'm sure Facebook will have a good laugh at your complaint. Before throwing it right into the bin where it belongs."

It was as though I had somehow upset people who are supposed to care for badgers by pointing out that someone was doing something that could harm badgers. I was still trying to help smooth things over though:

"If you go back I have been very polite to him and explained why he should not be doing this. I have tried privately as well and I have worked in wildlife since 1977 so well before his work -whatever that is as I can find no name or published papers. the whole reason I stopped checking on badger setts is because someone tracked me down in a similar way.

"I have actually had a response from FB (note: I received a notification from them about my ban which was why I contacted them) and they were not laughing and I have no idea why you are saying I am threatening BWUK admins?? I get a feeling you just want me to leave the group because this is getting ridiculous with the word threat being thrown everywhere. If ALL the admins agree that a field naturalist with decades of experience is not wanted but social media likes are then ALL admins should agreed to remove me."

In all honesty it was quite simple. I had spoken out against one of their "stars" who got lots of "Likes" for his videos and that, to the admins, was unacceptable and whatever I wrote I was "threatening" anyone and everyone. What I was not expecting was the very immature response to my last message:

So I responded: "That is very immature as a response and you seem to be baiting me for some reason but I stand by what I wrote and the fact that we have to protect badgers"

Sadly, Ardem really was as immature as his responses suggested as he sent this meme next:

I was still trying to be polite but Ardem then blocked me. As did the only other admin on FB.  Basically, they knew they were in t5he wrong and supporting an habituator for social media likes and had no way of responding so were turning every and any word into a "threat"   In fact, it seems that Ardem was not aware of the social media "You Lose the argument" rule. That last meme was it!   

So I waited to see what happened but I had been immediately removed from the group. Boris the Badger and Friends blocked me on all social media -as well as someone else who tried to explain why he should not feed the badgers the way he was.

"only one badger comes near me"  (c)2024 Boris the Badger

And to emphasise the point: 

 This is wrong on so many counts but as with many social media groups  covering foxes and other wild animals this is encouraged and "Boris" even gets a much cherished "Rising star"  at the top of his FB page. Wrong is wrong and these people know it but want the social media likes and ****  the wildlife.

Unfortunately for Badger Watch UK and Boris the Badger and Friends you post publicly then those photographs are available on any search engine (four to be exact as I tried them all to make sure)

Natural History In Bristol -I Really Am Going To Be Disliked (and I do not care)

Here is why Bristol Nature Network and Bristol Naturalist Society on Face Book are of no real interest.

For five years I have attempted to get discussions going on fox deaths and health as well as badger and otter deaths and issues surrounding them. I posted about what the post mortems had discovered; those findings as well as previously noted topics should have created discussion amongst the 6k+ members. Nothing.

Well there were some snide remarks and a few "Likes" but other than that a couple posts on why we need a wildlife care centre in Bristol being deleted as "campaigning" when the posts were referring to the health of Bristol wildlife which is NOT campaigning and I thought were the aims of naturalists.

I am that "mad person" -a field naturalist- that people want to ignore and not engage with. Today I was sent an item that appeared on Bristol Nature Network. So this is okay like the regular meet up for drinks but not LOCAL wildlife matters unless it is bees, butterflies and birds?

We have LOCAL Bristol based wildlife issues and yet out of 6K+ members no one interested? Just sit back and wait for the sunny photo opp weather?

Foxes and badgers are heading (factually proven) for extinction as are other UK species but let's not talk about that. Petitioning Bristol City Council for wildlife over'/underpasses to stop the hundreds of foxes and badgers killed each year in Bristol accident hot spots? Well.... it's so tiring having to think let alone do something active.

Neither the BNN or BNS have members representing naturalists who go out into the field to study and work...let me give you a definition of a Naturalist:

"A naturalist is any person who studies the natural world. Naturalists make observations of the relationships between organisms and their environments, as well as how those relationships change over time. One of the most well-known examples of a naturalist is Charles Darwin."

I am also called a mammalogist:

"Mammalogist. A mammalogist studies and observes mammals. In studying mammals, they can observe their habitats, contributions to the ecosystem, their interactions, and the anatomy and physiology. A mammalogist can do a broad variety of things within the realm of mammals."

Where are the naturalists and mammalogists in Bristol?

Well, I know where I am and I know where the local wildlife rescuer is who is far more of a naturalist than others in the City and County.

Pissed off? Yes, I am because 6K+ as well as the thousands on local wildlife groups are sitting on their asses while our wildlife and environment go down the toilet.

I was a young naturalist from a child and I will continue to be til the day I die and I at least will have left a legacy of decades of work.

Everyone SHOULD Understand This

 

It is all very simple but some people are either not reading or understanding so I will try to explain. "Beasts of the chace(chase)" were every and any animal that people wanted to hunt and kill. Eventually the word "vermin" was used to mean the same thing; animals of any type that were preferred for hunting. It is only hunts and supporters that use that term and it has never officially been used.

Seals, sea lions, cormorants..well, open any illustrated natural history book and point to a bird, mammal of any type and it was for killing. Authors wrote of seeing a seal resting on a rock and noticed it was within shooting range. So moron took his shot and the seal tumbled into the water and sank. Shooter had no idea if he had just wounded or killed it but simply got up and walked along to see what other shooting there was to be had.

Not just gentlemen but !lower classes" could take part in killing wildlife and earn enough for a boozy night or feed the family -foxes (adults and cubs), badgers (ditto), hedgehogs, pine marten on and on the list goes. Why kill these animals? Because they were not wanted as they fulfilled no practical function for humans...other than 'sport'.

By the 1860s Old (original) British red squirrels were wiped out with only one or two pockets continuing. Yes, people DID care because no red squirrels meant no fun shooting. The solution -import red squirrels from Europe. Since the 1860s the red squirrel has faced several near extinctions and nothing to do with grey squirrels. Even today this 'protected' species is shot on private estates and trapped, shop or killed in other ways by commercial forestry companies. None of those ever faces prosecution or any type of legal kick-back but the grey squirrel is a fine scapegoat.

By the 1860s hare coursing had wiped out hares in England. The whole 'sport'of hare coursing along with hare hounds faced it's end. There was a solution: import hares from Europe and so hares flourished again only to be nearly wiped out and today the number in the wild is not that great.

In other areas deer hunting wiped out the species and a solution was found to this: import deer from Europe. Of course, those deer were hunted until their numbers dropped then more were brought in.

The three types of Old British fox were written about in the 'sporting' journals and books. Everyone stated that these foxes were becoming extinct. They kept hunting until by the 1860s the Old foxes were gone and replaced by foxes brought in from Europe, possibly starting in the 1700s. There have been several massive falls in fox populations since the 1900s and we are currently looking at another that may well lead to extinct in the 2030s.

Wild cats were also 'sport' and by the 1860s -a period in British natural history worth noting- the true Scottish wild cat was extinct. Naturalists who had also hunted these animals noted how museums they visited had taxidermy 'wild cats' that were not. The type currently used as the "poster animal" for the species only started appearing in the late 19th/early 20th centuries and there are photographs proving the point. We know that menageries and zoos wanted wild cats and the many animal importers were willing to supply. There may have been some escapees but their distribution and the hybrids they produced are a puzzle until recently when my research discovered that owners of hunting territories were restocking those areas with wild cats so that those with licences had something large to kill.

It goes on and on and on ad infinitum.  

Shooters are currently chatting about where wild cats are going to be released and the excitement over when wolves or lynx will be introduced is high. Yes, bring them back and they will be wiped out.

The wild cats that currently exist, as I have pointed out so often, are not "re-introductions" because you cannot re-introduce a species that went extinct in the 1860s -none exist. These are introductions to fill in a niche the original extinction left almost open. Note that even now the 'protected' wild cat is still being killed on farms and private estates because there is no strong arm law to prevent this.  Do you really think that wild cats wandering into a private estate are going to be allowed to do so?

Introductions create other problems. Some wild cats are due for release in areas where the pine marten has returned over the years. Two predators in a geographically small area...not a good idea. 

When you read that DNA from UK wildlife matches European species it is because they are that species. We need really ancient bones, etc. to try to find genuine Old British wildlife DNA.  

Summarising:

A died out so A2 imported from Europe

B died out so B2 imporeted from Europe.

Just continue with that until you come to Z

Have YOU Killed A Fox By Accident?

  This was posted by Wildlife Aid yesterday:

"We are disheartened to even have to do this post, but our iDot initiative is one strategy we created to try and combat these issues.

"We recently received a call regarding a collapsed fox. Sadly, when she arrived with us, she had already passed away. When possible, our vet team will carry out post-mortems to determine a patient’s cause of death. The fox arrived with a severely swollen abdomen; she would have been in a great deal of pain. When volunteer vet, Georgina, opened the vixen up, we were all shocked to discover a tangled mass of what appeared to be dog poo bags in her digestive tract.

"A study carried out in 2022 by the University of Aberdeen, involved the analysis of wild red foxes’ diet; it was discovered that dog faeces makes up a significant part. We suspect this may have been the reason the vixen had ingested the bags.

"Sadly, the prevalence of dog poo bags routinely left hung in trees, on the ground, and even in fragile nature reserves, has contributed to this vixen passing away.

"This was just one fox that we knew about, fatally impacted by an issue that is completely avoidable.

"Please, make your 'I Do One Thing' be to consider your impact on wildlife. "

Someone said taking a stick and flicking your dog's faeces into bushes or off paths is easiest. Yes it is but if a fox ingests your dog's faeces it may also take in parasites, etc., that it is no vaccinated against and that may well cause fox health issues.

We know that plastic wrapper has killed a fox. We know that a deflated party balloon that fell into woodland killed a fox. We know that dog poop bags have killed a fox. We know this because the foxes were subject to post mortems, which is not routine in the UK. When I write that we know I mean in these cases where the foxes were found. We have no idea how many others die and all because of human waste issues (if you dump your dog poop bag that is human waste -double bag and bin it when you get home).

Morons going out shooting foxes for 'fun' kills many -cubs, lactating vixens and dog foxes. Cars kill many thousands and human waste....?

It IS A Wild Cat But Is NOT

  If you have read The Red Paper 2022 Vol. 2 -Felids then you will be aware that contemporary accounts and studies by naturalists at the time put the extinction of the Old Scottish wild cat as circa the 1860s -a period during with red squirrels, Old fox types and other species also fell into the Gone Forever hole. The extinction of the Scottish wild cat in the 1860s was announced in 1895.  Now we have problems.

Above a European wild cat (c)2024 respective copyright owner.

Why are there still wild cats in Scotland if they became extinct?  Well we don't but do. There was a reason why hunting dogs were equipped with studded leather collars when 'sportsmen' went hunting; they were specifically hunting wild cats which at that time were large and would fatally injure or kill a dog(s) and if a hunter made a mistake he could join the dogs.

 All of the old naturalist-'sportsmen' noted the decline in wild cats the same way they noted the decline in hares and Old fox types. However, they still made sure their own game keepers were killing them and Frank Buckland even reported on his game keepers cottage having a wall full of cat heads that had been killed (domestic as well as wild). 

There is taxidermy evidence (see The Red Paper) that feral cats had crossed with wild cats in England up into the 1930s and I even gathered reports of wild cats typical of those seen in Scotland in Shropshire where the last female was killed in 1941. Now, despite the inaccurate claims of English wild cats dying out in the 16th or 17th century this was not true and in Wales one wild cat "had a go" at a hunter after a fox (long story).

There seemed to be a distinct6 colouration to the true wild cats and that was the yellowish or grey colouration -hence why Pennant in the 1700s termed it "The English Tiger" -a name later adapted for Scottish wild cats; "The Highland Tiger". The heads and ears of a true wild cat were distinctive and the Extinct Fox and Wild Cat Museum has samples (taxidermy) of these going back to the 1830s.  

I have already posted about why the current "wild tabby" has been accepted as a true wild cat so I will not bore on that again. All I will write is that it was a cat type purchased from animal traders after being imported to England and these cats were sold off to travelling menageries and private collections and, like imported foxes, also to hunting areas. 

If you go to wildlife parks or some zoos you will find the main four cats (as pairs) in the collections; black leopards, pumas, Lynx and wild cats. Now, firstly, black leopards are "extremely rare" we are told and yet there are so many in captivity so not that rare!  Also, Scottish "wild cats" are a protected species and allegedly very rare so where are all the wild cats in collections coming from? Obviously the panthers as well as lynx and puma are being bred "somewhere" and the wild cats definitely are. In the early 1990s I discovered that wild cats were being released in different parts of the UK and not officially.

I also discovered, quite by accident, that wild cats of the European type ("as seen in Scotland") were being released into hunting territories in England.  One person responded to this that it seemed unlikely since wild cats were "considered to be vermin" which shows a lack of knowledge. "Vermin" is a term only used by hunts to denote animals they can "have sport with" and kill. It was a term used as "beasts of the chase" slipped out of fashion. Why were hunters going out into remote areas with specially raised dogs and well protected with leather studded collars if not the hunt wild cats?  It was 'sport' and 'fun' in a typical psychopathic way.  The fight that the cat put up was what these people wanted and if a dog was killed or seriously injured another could be bought.

Landowners used to have hunting territories that someone could purchase a license to hunt in. Those areas had to be restocked because the shooting killed off a lot. One doctor (see The Red Paper) shot one wild cat in such a territory and had it stuffed and mounted and it took years of dead ends but I managed to get a photograph of the actual taxidermy as it still exists. The odd thing was that another shooter who mentioned he had shot similar in the same area confirmed it was the same type though he had not paid that much attention but picked the body up and threw it over a tree branch (just shooting and killing interest).  However, it turned out that just outside of this hunting territory a pair of wild cats were caught and killed -in the 1920s and in an area where wild cats were supposedly killed off by the 18th century.

Then one line cropped up stating that the hunting country owner had "replenished hunting stock" to avoid very unhappy shooters who were paying good money to have things to kill. When you then start realising that the hybrids killed were in areas where there was hunting you do not have to be a genius to work out that "wild cats like you see in Scotland" were obviously releases and for no other reason than to afford some sport although the odd escape from private collections cannot be ruled out as another source.

We have feral cat populations in the UK (and elsewhere) that can be seen as modern wild cats but adapted to their environments. European wild cats are now being bred as "Scottish wild cats" and they are to be introduced NOT "re-introduced". Similar is taking place in other parts of England and possibly Wales -officially approved and not approved.

Let me try to make it clear to readers that the proclaimed Scottish wild cats are not the original species of wild cat and bear no resemblance to them. They are the descendants of European wild cats very likely released for hunting but which survived and filled the niche left by the Old wild cat. They are wild cats but introduced ones hence DNA testing identifying them as being the same species as in Europe.

Wild cats have been breeding with feral domestic cats for around a thousand years at least in the UK and in Europe even longer.  The original British wild cat species would have been Wild Cat Prime. After domestic cats (not pets but working cats kept to keep down rodents) were introduced -they are not an "invasive species"- the resultant hybrid would have been Generation 2 living alongside Prime. In the 18th and 19th centuries (and in some earlier sources) it is made very clear that the wild cat "would have become extinct centuries ago" if not for the interbreeding with ferals. 

So the true British wild cat ceased to exist a very long time ago with, perhaps, Prime types continuing in very remote areas in small numbers.  That is my point. None of the cats currently being 'reintroduced' are true Old wild cats but descendants of some escapees and cats released for hunting. 

But they are being raised as wild cats to fill a niche and, sadly, we already know that shooters are looking for areas they have been released into and no doubt vehicles will claim others. At the same time estate wardens/game keepers are killing wild cats just as they kill red squirrels and badgers -all protected species so until a law that is enforceable on private estates and which are followed through by police can be brought in the new wild cats will be dying off just as fast as the Old.

In Europe it is quite clear that wild cats have interbred with feral domestic cats and when one looks at Iberia it is even clearer -some photographs of Iberian wild cats look very much like the North African wild cat (F. lybica) which should not be surprising since, like genets, F. lybica were brought to Southern Europe during the time of the Moors . The Moors were Arabs from Arabia & peoples they had conquered - Egyptians, & Berbers from NW Africa) who had conquered most of what are now Spain, the Balearic Islands and Portugal, Sicily and the southernmost parts of Italy along with some of southern France in the 8th to 10th centuries. They are likely to be the people who introduced F. lybica in those areas of Europe and also gave them as gifts (or escapees) elsewhere.

Unfortunately, academics are invested in dogma so searching museum and other archives for very old taxidermy or pictorial evidence is ruled out. Money come from grants that continue dogma and does not shake up the established 'history' -as I have found this can lead to supposed respected persons being rude, insulting and dismissive and not even wanting to look at the evidence accumulated.#

Academia =money

Serious original research = zero

no extinct animal or bird should be introduced.

 

All of the conversation and comments were on a Public forum so are therefore not confidential

This was posted and got a negative response:

Michael Davies

"care about forests and then introduce beavers you lot must be nuts"

To which I responded:

"Terry Hooper

Michael Davies Are you just anti wildlife or is there a particular reason why you dislike beavers? My guess is that you have not carried out any research on beavers or their part in environmental landscaping. "Beavers are ecosystem engineers because they create, modify, and maintain habitat and ecosystems. They consequently have a large impact on the biodiversity of an area. They bring wood into the water, and that wood provides food and shelter for insects. Those insects become food for other species, including salmon."

And someone else commented:

"Steven Smith

Terry Hooper Would I be right in thinking Beavers kill trees & therefore damage woodlands"

Oh, then Andrew Snowden having taken a week to think of a response:

"Terry Hooper Yes, by destroying existing habitat, habitat established since the beaver disappeared. You have no way to control how the beaver works, or indeed if it moves to where it's not wanted or welcome. It presumes that the release point has sufficient food species for the beaver too. In all, it's one of the sillier "rewilding" projects, of dubious benefit, and no-one talks about just how you eradicate them again if they make a mess of things. Beavers and forestry don't go together."

oh then this:

"Phil Webster

Terry Hooper They were eradicated 200 years ago with good reason....Go to the library and study....Stop quoting internet snowflake garbage...."

So I responded:

"Andrew Snowdon They do not drive to a spot and take a couple beaver out of a box and set them down just anywhere a lot6 of work goes into looking at locations, etc.. You lost any argument the moment you wrote: "no-one talks about just how you eradicate them again". Kill them. Rather like legally protected red squirrels are still killed by commercial forestry groups? The moment you wrote those words you failed. Conversation ended."

And to Webster:

"Phil Webster You are an idiot. They were killed for 'fun sport'. I have been a naturalist since 1977 and studied mammals and exotics -it is why I am a mammalogist. I have books on wildlife going back to the 18th century and many papers by naturalists and zoologists from that time forward. It seems that the person lacking knowledge is you. And "snow flake" 😂😂😂😂 oh man you are so lame. You could have tried "tree hugger" or one of the other kiddy insults you anti wildlife people love to throw around. Odd you should mention books though; did you know humans cut down trees to pulp them and make paper -you may have missed that episode of Blue Peter. No beavers involved. Until you can put forward a fact based argument best to just sit back and maybe read some of the volumes of work on beaver research."

The one thing you find on any "rewilding" group (for Scotland for instance) are the anti-wildlife people. Lots of them. They cite some very bad 'science' and really they need to explain more WHY they are on these groups.

For my part I changed my mind over 20 years ago regarding introducing a species (it is NOT "re-introduction" because the native species was wiped out so you are introducing new species). There are people out there who love killing things and most chat on groups about waiting for wild cat introduction so they can shoot them. There is a lot of debate about when lynx and wolves might be introduced so they can go out and shoot one.

Until gun laws are changed and people are stopped from going out every night to kill for fun -wildlife of all types and even the odd farm animal or pet- then you are simply restocking for killing.

I have become convince that any species wiped out by a country or State should never be brought back. Time and again we see this; wolves were almost extinct in the United States and they brought them back and they are slaughtered in numbers...so more wolves need to be introduced. We have seen the EU protect wolves but now, for political and voting reasons some of the "protectors" have turned pro hunting.

Man made problems created flooding. We see more and more of the environment destroyed and the flooding increasing. The beaver did not cause flooding and had to be wiped out. That is pure nonsense and low IQ 'thinking'.

Unless forestry groups can guarantee -legally- that they have a no kill policy and can protect animals introduced then they should not. There are taxidermists that pay good money for specific animals -they even have a set buy price for various animals and a lot of badgers ('road kill' of course) are in the hands of taxidermists.

So long as wildlife crime goes largely unpunished and shooters are out every night having their 'fun' no extinct animal or bird should be introduced.

Fox den In Your Garden

 

(c)2024 The Fox Repellent Expert

After a vixen was stressed out and had to move her cubs from a garden where people could not possibly wait to remove a shed -it would devastate them- I need to make this clear again.  In some cases a cub may be left behind so any cub deaths are down to your ignorance and nothing else.

"Though no doubt you wouldn’t even consider doing anything inhumane, it still needs to be stated that you must not interfere with the den in any way, including blocking up the entrance with live foxes inside, poking sticks down the hole, or digging it up and filling it in. Doing this is wrong and is quite rightly illegal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. You can only fill in and block up the den once you’re sure the den is empty."
https://foxrepellentexpert.com/denning/#:~:text=Though%20no%20doubt%20you%20wouldn,up%20and%20filling%20it%20in.

Trapping a fox and "transporting it 30 miles so it does not come back" is so full of legal ramifications and problems doing that will make you a Grade A Moron. Move a fox away...another fox will move in. 
Check the website linked above if you really are that big a problem.