This article contains content that some may find distressing.
RAC member, Dr Stacy Banwell, delves into the complexities of how to deal with grey squirrels from a vegan perspective
I recall whilst at a birthday part in July 2022, the topic of the grey squirrel was raised, specifically an article about squirrels being given oral contraceptives to render them infertile.
Over the past 4 years, the government’s Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) has been developing an oral contraceptive to control the grey squirrel population in the UK. Previous culling attempts have been unsuccessful (Rowlatt, 2021). This new drug works as a type of vaccine that triggers the immune system to restrict the production of sex hormones. This leaves both male and female grey squirrels infertile. The proposed treatment – anticipated to be deployed in the next few years if subsequent tests are successful – is believed to be a more ‘humane’ method of controlling this population of non-human animals. The drug will be administered to squirrels via feeding boxes. The door to the feeding box will be weighted so that smaller red squirrels will be prevented from entering. They will contain pots of hazelnut spread dosed with the contraceptive (Gilchrist, 2021).
Introduced from North America in the 19th century, grey squirrels are classified as invasive non-native animals. The financial costs of the damage they cause to trees in England and Wales is estimated to cost £37 million a year (Royal Forestry Society, 2021). Grey squirrels strip the bark from trees to access the sap beneath. This scars the tree thus allowing entry for other ‘invasive’ species and diseases to stunt its growth. It is argued that this damage to woodland impedes the UK government’s efforts to tackle climate change. It also, as Rowlatt (2022) reports, has implications for other species of non-human animal, as one “mature oak tree can support up to 2,000 other species” (Rowlatt, 2022). In addition, grey squirrels are larger and stronger than red squirrels and carry a squirrel pox virus, to which they are immune, unlike the red squirrel (Gilchrist, 2017). It is believed that grey squirrels have driven red squirrels to the verge of extinction.
Claims that grey squirrels are bad for the environment, and therefore implicated in the climate crisis, are contested, with research demonstrating that, conversely, grey and red squirrels play an important role in maintaining woodlands by burying nuts and seeding new trees (Gilchrist, 2021). Despite this, the UK government supports programmes that call for the culling of this species. This includes the new oral contraceptive. Some concede that administering oral contraceptives is, at least, “a more humane alternative to live trapping and bludgeoning the animals to death” (Gilchrist, 2021). For example, in response to the government-backed programme to control grey squirrels via oral contraceptives, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) also supported this non-lethal method of population control. However, they added: “[w]e mustn’t forget that grey squirrels and other species deemed ‘invasive’ are where they are through no fault of their own and entirely due to human carelessness, and they deserve to be left in peace” (as cited by Rowlatt, 2022). I agree. I believe, ethics aside, and objectively speaking, this is a more humane way to manage this species of non-human animal. However, the belief that fertility-control methods for managing non-human animals are ‘humane’ or ‘benign’ is not supported by everyone (Hampton, Hyndman, Barnes & Collins, 2015). Indeed, a balance needs to be drawn between an emphasis on the efficacy of fertility control and the welfare of non-human animals. In their article, Is Wildlife Fertility Control Always Humane? Hampton et al. (2015) argue that animal welfare should not just be based on the short-term health implications for non-human animals. Referring to the Five Domains Model – which measures animal welfare along the categories of nutrition, environment, health, behaviour and mental state – they believe that the “assessment of animal welfare must be based on a wide range of measures in addition to health indices” (Hampton et al., 2015, p. 1057). At present, research only focuses on domain three of the model: health.
The ethics of controlling certain species of non-human animals is complex and is bound up with subjective viewpoints and personal values. An individual’s response to a method will depend on what alternative methods are available. For example, if your options are either between a non-lethal method, such as oral contraception or a lethal method, such as shooting or kill traps, then it is reasonable to assume that most people will opt for the former. However, if your choice is simply between different types of lethal methods of population control, you may opt for the more ‘humane’ of these options. Lauber, Knuth, Tantillo and Curtis (2007) conducted empirical research exploring the link between public policymaking and people’s ethical views on wildlife fertility control. While their research is based on white-tailed deer and feral cats, their overarching research question is one I share: is it ethically acceptable to use fertility control, such as oral contraception, to control populations of ‘invasive’ non-human animals?
My response to this question is that it is not ethical to administer oral contraceptives to grey squirrels. While I appreciate that this procedure does not kill the squirrel, the potential harms have not yet been fully assessed and the procedure involves non-consensual administration of the drug. Given that the environmental damage caused by grey squirrels is unsubstantiated, I do not think we should be culling them at all.
There is an alternative to these (non-lethal reproductive) methods of controlling the population of grey squirrels and that is: eating them. Problematically framed as a form of “ethical dining” and a solution to controlling invasive species, Paul Wedgwood, a renowned Scottish chef, believes that eating squirrels can help the environment and save the red squirrel from extinction (Greenfield, 2022). This practice is referred to as invasivorism, a term coined by Joe Roman, a conservation biologist and refers to a process where humans act as a type of “biological control.” He explains: “[h]umans are amazing predators: whether it’s eating the grey squirrel in Britain or the European green crab in the US, we know eating them can have an impact on populations” (as cited by Greenfield, 2022). It is worth noting at the outset: I take issue with this lethal from of population control and fail to see how this can be framed as an “ethical” form of dining. As a vegan, consumption of any non-human animal is considered unethical.
Bun Lai – who received the White House Champions of Change award for the development of sustainable food in 2016 – created a menu using ‘invasive’ species. He claims that eating “invasive animals such as boar and nutria instead of cows…would have a significant impact on climate change because of their greenhouse gas emissions” (cited by Greenfield, 2022). Here we should heed the words of Crowley, Hinchliffe and McDonald (2018, p. 138) who argue, albeit with reference to wildlife, that “a fundamental component of wildlife management planning” must address how and why certain wildlife is “killed and ‘made killable’” [emphasis added].
To reiterate: I do not endorse invasivorism. It is unethical and, as noted earlier, given the claim of grey squirrels being bad for the environment (and therefore implicated in the climate crisis) is unfounded, we should consider alternative ways of addressing environmental threats. Instead of using invasivorism to reduce the climate-related impacts of factory farming, our priority should be the “phasing out of fossil fuels” rather than the culling and/or consumption of ‘invasive’ species.
Stacy Banwell is a Professor of Criminology at the University of Greenwich leading an emerging and pioneering sub-discipline within green criminology: vegan and more-than-human criminology.
The views expressed by our bloggers are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society.
