The Myth of the Evil Grey Squirrel
The title of this essay reminds me of the following saying. Knowledge is a good thing. Lack of knowledge is a bad thing. But the very worst thing is a little bit of knowledge. And the situation with British grey squirrels illustrates it rather well. Grey squirrels are agile, intelligent, engaging little creatures, and many people enjoy watching, and even feeding them, in parks and gardens. But then someone comes along and says, “But aren’t they invasive, aren’t they considered vermin?” And that sound bite, if people stop there and do not question it, becomes the basis of pseudo-scientific mythology, which can lead to implicitly or explicitly condoning a great deal of environmental injustice and a great deal of animal cruelty. The actual myth of the evil grey squirrel consists of three parts: they are said to have driven out the native red squirrel, they are accused of contributing to deforestation and of reducing the bird population.
​
THE MECHANISMS OF THE MYTH-MAKING
Before dealing with these accusations in more detail, it is worth uncovering some of the actual mechanisms of pseudo-scientific myth-making. First of all, there is straightforward exaggeration of the ecological impact of grey squirrels. Secondly, there is the substitution of scientific facts by opinions and value judgements. To clarify this, a non-squirrel example can be considered. It may be scientifically true that killing everyone over the age of sixty will solve the NHS crisis. But it does not mean that we are actually going to go through with this solution. Nor does it mean that anyone who objects to the killing of people over the age of sixty is a flat-earther who denies science. It means that scientific facts are interpreted facts, and how we act on scientific data is determined by ethics, not natural science. Thirdly, there is the use of misleading words, particularly of the “can” and “does” variety. Thus we can say, for example, that Tesla cars can catch fire, and it would be true. But if we say that Tesla cars do catch fire all the time, it is a different matter altogether. This is another important distinction to bear in mind when reading about the impact of grey squirrels in this country.
REDS AND GREYS - THE FACTS
In terms of the actual grey squirrel myths, the pride of place in this rogue gallery belongs to the cluster of accusations concerning red squirrels. Separating fact from myth, we note that it is true that red squirrels are, as a species, native to this country. At one point they were so numerous that they were considered the vermin, and accused off all the crimes, such as damage to forestry, that grey squirrels are accused of today, and were also mercilessly persecuted and hunted. But then, towards the end of the 18th century (before grey squirrels were introduced), their numbers crashed, to the point of near-extinction. This was because of habitat loss, because of deforestation, as a result of intensifying agriculture and industrial activity. Many attempts have been made to reintroduce red squirrels from continental Europe, and breed from this European stock in captivity, but, in the long term, these red squirrels invariably fail to thrive. In the 19th century grey squirrels were introduced, and proved to be a good ecological fit. Where red squirrels are extremely habitat sensitive, preferring extensive pine or mixed forest, and not tolerating fragmented habitats, their grey cousins are extremely adaptable, and can even thrive in the ecological mess that is our towns and cities. British grey squirrels are genetically robust and have strong immunity. They are also superbly adaptable in terms of the food they eat. They can eat acorns, something that red squirrels cannot do. (The idyllic picture of native red squirrels frolicking in the native oak trees is a myth: red squirrels cannot digest acorns.) Grey squirrels can also eat seeds and nuts that are not quite ripe, and are even partial to that special delicacy, our rubbish. Furthermore, grey squirrels are highly intelligent. They perform very well in cognitive tests, solving counterintuitive puzzles, learning from their mistakes, remembering solutions for up to two years.
​
REDS AND GREYS - THE MYTHS - COMPETITION
And it is roughly at this point that the myth-making begins. The first mechanism that comes into play is exaggeration. The role of competition in the decline of red squirrel numbers is hugely exaggerated, whereas the role of habitat loss is either underplayed or ignored altogether. While it is true that in most present-day British habitats grey squirrels would outcompete red ones, it is equally true that in these habitats red squirrels would not thrive even if every grey squirrel suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth. It is proved, first and foremost, by the fact that red squirrels became virtually extinct in the British isles before grey squirrels were introduced.
REDS AND GREYS - THE MYTHS - DISEASE
Disease is often mentioned as a factor in the disappearance of red squirrels from most of Britain, but that is also an issue where exaggeration if rife. A great deal is made of the squirrel pox, which grey squirrels are immune to, but which red squirrels die from. But the pox is only one of a variety of diseases that red squirrels succumb to, many of which have symptoms similar to the pox and which are often, in the spirit of myth-making, reported as the pox by citizen scientists, so that it is blamed on the grey squirrels. Furthermore, the mechanism of disease transmission is such that red squirrels are far more likely to get it from fellow reds, for example via shared feeders, than from the greys.
​
REDS AND GREYS - THE MYTHS - "CONSERVATION PROJECTS"
It must be noted here that there are some projects that claim to prove that, by either killing all the grey squirrels in a given territory, such as the island of Anglesey in Wales, or by creating a buffer zone where grey squirrels are constantly killed, such as some areas in the North of England, they allowed red squirrels to come back. But the argument is in the detail. If one looks a little closer at these projects, one finds that the red squirrels in question are artificially maintained, with extensive captive breeding programmes feeding into them, with nest boxes, feeding stations – more like a large zoo than an environmental effort. These project are not particularly kind even to the red squirrels they are claimed to help. Placed in habitats that they have not evolved to live in, these animals cannot feed naturally and have to rely heavily on shared feeders. Which spread diseases, since red squirrels are forced into higher concentrations that they would naturally tolerate and get diseases from each other. The food offered to them happens to be softer than their natural food, so, over several generations, their teeth have grown weaker, so that, even if by some miracle their natural habitat was to be restored, they would no longer be physically capable to taking full advantage of the food. And, to cap it all, most of them, if not all of them, are not the original British subspecies of the red squirrel, Sciurus vulgaris leucourus, but, genetically, a mixed bag, products of repeated attempts at reintroduction from continental Europe.
REDS AND GREYS - THE MYTHS - FACT OR OPINION
Another myth-making mechanism that comes into play in the red versus grey debate is substituting scientific fact for value judgement. Grey squirrels being an introduced species is a fact. Grey squirrels not belonging here is an opinion. After all, habitats change, and an animal that thrived in the British Isles three hundred years ago is not necessarily going to thrive in the new, altered British habitat, whereas an introduced species can become an accidental, but good ecological fit. So why should the history of dispersal, rather than present-day ecological fitness, be the criterion of who belongs and who does not? It is, at best, a matter of elective preference. Indeed, it appears more logical to choose ecological fitness as the main criterion and allow the habitat to choose the animal. Otherwise we are simply attempting to hammer the square peg that is the red squirrel into the round hole that is the present-day British habitat, while attempting to destroy the grey squirrel, who has merely won the evolutionary game of the survival of the fittest.
​
REDS AND GREYS - THEY MYTHS - DECEPTIVE LANGUAGE
The language that is used of the grey squirrel is the stuff that myths are made of also. The very term “invasive alien species” is a good illustration of language that is both unjustifiably emotive and biased. Consider the term "invasive": it immediately calls to mind something along the lines of, "Help, we are being invaded!" Interestingly, one can give it a positive spin and say that the species is "successful"; the scientific facts behind the terms are exactly the same, but one gives a negative spin, and the other a positive one. Would the neutral term "wide-spread" not be more appropriate for scientific and legal discourse? Similarly, the term "alien" carries the extra semantic layer of "something from outer space", "something that does not belong here". Surely the neutral term "introduced" species should be preferred?
​
TREES AND SQUIRRELS - FOREST REGENERATORS
The second accusation, that grey squirrels destroy trees and cause deforestation, is a particular strange one, since the very opposite is true, grey squirrels are known as some of Nature's greatest forest regenerators, they plant new trees by burying seeds and nuts. They are better at it that red squirrels, because of the manner of hoarding of the two species. The reds larder hoard, i.e. put all their supplies in one place, such as a hole in a tree. The greys scatter hoard, i.e. bury each seed or nut individually. Because they are very clever animals, they are always on the look-out for potential thieves, such as other squirrels or birds, and would sometimes bury their treasure on the edge of the forest, in a place that is more open and therefore more dangerous, but also safer from thieves. Because the place is slightly more dangerous, the nuts and seeds buried there are retrieved last, or not at all, and the forest thus starts "creeping out" and regenerating naturally. It is, of course, true that squirrels, both red and greys ones, feed on trees. They eat buds, twigs, leaves; they can strip some bark in order to get to the sap, the jelly underneath. But this does not kill the tree, it merely changes its appearance. Except perhaps in a tiny minority of cases where disease gets in under the stripped bark and the tree does die. But it then becomes a very important wildlife habitat in its own right, dead wood is important for the environment.
​
TREES AND SQUIRRELS - ARTIFICIAL WOODLAND
A differentiation has to be made, however, between naturally growing woodland, where the activity of grey squirrels is uniformly beneficial, and artificial woodland, sticks in the ground, where some damage by grey squirrels does occur. But it is (according to Forestry Commission research) statistically acceptable, standing at just 5%, whereas the threshold for destruction is 30% of canopy trees. A tranche of research papers came out a few years ago that did suggest higher percentage of damage, in some cases much hire. But it is important to remember that these studies did not actually look at a single real tree. They were questionnaires sent out to pest controller, game keepers, land owners, etc., asking them to estimate squirrel damage. It is easy to see that the methodology of this "research" is one solid conflict of interest. The people asked to estimate grey squirrel damage were the very people who stood to benefit financially from killing these animals (in the case of land-owners there was a hope of grants). It is also important to note that the killing actually makes the problem worse. As any rescuer would know, grey squirrels are particularly active chewers in the first year of their lives, but then lose interest in the activity. Killing makes the overall population younger, since new young squirrels come along to take the place of older ones, and the damage increases as a result.
​
BIRDS AND SQUIRRELS
The third accusation against grey squirrels is that they destroy the bird population. It should be a quick matter to deal with, since an extensive, government-funded monitoring programme concluded that the presence of grey squirrels does not reduce the bird population. And yet the accusations persist. Perhaps the rational kernel of this particular myth consists in the fact that squirrels, both red and grey ones, are omnivorous, and, if they are hungry and come across an unattended nest, can take an egg or a chick. But they are not predators, and their activity is statistically negligible. To suggest otherwise is, once again, myth-making by exaggeration.
​
CONSEQUENCES OF THE MYTH-MAKING
The myth of the evil grey squirrel, though intellectually untenable, has wide-reaching and distressing consequences. Countless animal lives are lost in cruel and pointless culls. Millions of pounds are wasted on extermination projects. Compassion itself has been made a crime, since wildlife rescuers who return a grey squirrel to the wild after a period of hand-rearing or rehabilitation face an unlimited fine and a prison sentence of up to two years. These irrational and vicious activities and policies needs to be exposed and opposed, and a good place to start is by exposing the underlying pseudo-scientific myth-making for what it is.
​