Is the Wildlife Trust Breeding Murderers, Rapists, Wife Beaters and Child Abusers?
Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA
The Wildlife Trust recently announced plans to recruit 5,000 volunteers for its ‘Squirrel Crushing’ campaign.
Recruits will be trained how to bludgeon grey squirrels to death; to crush squirrels’ skulls with rock, hammers or whatever else useful comes to hand. Seriously, someone called Dr Cathleen Thomas, representing the Wildlife Trust and programme manager of ‘Red Squirrels United’ wants volunteers to trap and kill grey squirrels by putting them into a bag and knocking them over the head.
Their ultimate aim is to kill grey squirrels so that there will, they hope, be more red squirrels.
This is, of course, the animal equivalent of racism based on colour and it is utterly unacceptable.
My guess is that the Wildlife Trust, which complains that the grey squirrels are immigrants, wants to kill grey squirrels for cosmetic reasons: maybe Dr Thomas and her little chums think the red ones look prettier and will attract more customers to their bits of sanitised woodland. ‘Oh, look, there’s a pretty red one, Doris! Take a selfie.’
Inevitably, the Wildlife Trust has created some arguments in favour of its brutal form of ethnic cleansing.
The Wildlife Trust presumably believe that if the grey squirrels are eradicated then the red squirrels will come bouncing back. They presumably want the squirrels which they think are ‘prettier’ posing daintily in their domesticated bits of woodland. In my view, this is nothing more than a murderous fashion statement and is entirely inappropriate for an organisation which claims to be a friend of animals.
There are, I believe, some serious errors in the thinking of all those who believe that grey squirrels are foreign invaders who do much damage, while red squirrels are charming, home-grown and harmless.
First, the red squirrel does every bit as much damage as the grey squirrel and was itself, not long ago, regarded as a pest.
Second, the red squirrel does not help trees by planting their seeds. The red squirrel piles up its stored nuts and this is of no value whatsoever to trees. In contrast, the grey squirrel buries nuts and often forgets where they are – with the result that thousands of trees are inadvertently planted. (The grey squirrel plants nuts with great care and precision, digging a hole just the right depth and then covering the buried nut with soil and leaves.)
Third, because of its habit of planting nuts and then forgetting about them, the grey squirrel has been shown to do a vital service for oak, walnut and beech trees. And woodland experts believe that if the grey squirrel is driven out then our forests will suffer enormously. In our garden, grey squirrels have damaged just two branches of a beech tree by ring barking them (and the tree thrives without those branches) and they have (to my knowledge) planted at the very least 50 hazel and beech trees – a dozen or so of which I have dug up, moved and replanted in more convenient positions.
Fourth, the sort of evil discrimination being planned by the Wildlife Trust isn’t new, of course. But it is strangely reminiscent of a cull that took place a century or so ago. The irony is that the last time there was a cull it was red squirrels which were targeted. Red squirrels were once considered a real menace in this country; so much so, that in response to the damage they had caused to woodlands, the Highland Squirrel Club was formed in 1903 with the aim of exterminating as many red squirrels as possible. The members of the Club set about doing this with great gusto. In the first 30 years of its existence, the Highland Squirrel Club managed to kill 82,000 red squirrels.
Fifth, the Wildlife Trust doesn’t like grey squirrels because they come from America. They seem to regard them as unwanted immigrants. If they’d done their research properly, they would know that many of the red squirrels are immigrants too. Back in 1844, Lady Lovat imported a good many red squirrels from Sweden. It is not the greys’ fault that they were introduced into this country. They have been in Britain for over 100 years; how long do they have to live here before they are considered native? There is even some debate as to whether or not the red squirrel was native to this country, but this is not something that the anti-grey squirrel brigade likes to discuss openly.
Sixth, the Wildlife Trust seems to think that the grey squirrel can be blamed for the decline in the number of red squirrels. But they’re wrong about that too. The main culprit for the massive decline in the red squirrel population in Britain is the loss of habitat. Greys are far better suited to deciduous woodlands or mixed woodlands and are able to eat a wider variety of foods; much of the food that makes up the diet of the grey squirrel is indigestible for the red squirrels. The red squirrels thrive best in coniferous woodlands, which is why they do well in Scotland where many of the pine forests are. It seems obvious, therefore, that for red squirrels to flourish in this country then they need more of their right sort of habitat: coniferous woodlands. So, if the Wildlife Trust really wants more red squirrels they should just plant a few more trees that are favoured by the red squirrels.
Seventh, the Wildlife Trust also claims that the grey squirrels are passing the squirrelpox onto the red squirrels. However, research has shown that the red squirrels had this deadly disease before the greys were even introduced into this country. And if their numbers had not been so badly decimated in the early part of the 20th century then they too would have probably acquired immunity to the disease by now – just as the greys have done. In fact, there have been recent reports that red squirrels have shown signs of acquiring immunity to the virus. So the squirrelpox argument is hollow.
The bottom line is that red squirrels, being prettier and not so ubiquitous, are boosting tourism in the areas where they have been artificially reintroduced. Grey squirrels are suffering from commercial expediency and a bad press. And I suspect that it is for commercial reasons that ‘Squirrel Coshing’ is being encouraged.
The Wildlife Trust has received millions from Heritage Lottery and EU Life Funding for this foul work. I know that anyone working for the EU must be a mad fascist with a strong streak of racism running through their cold veins. But is the same true for those at the Heritage Lottery?
The Wildlife Trust’s ultimate aim is to kill grey squirrels in the hope that there will, in due course, be more red squirrels.
But the Wildlife’s Trust desire to get rid of grey squirrels is neither logical nor scientific.
As I have already illustrated, there is much wrong with the Wildlife Trust’s bit of blatant colour prejudice.
But there is another problem.
I am especially worried about the effect this bizarre squirrel bashing policy will have on the people recruited to do the squirrel bashing – and on their friends, relatives and neighbours.
The Wildlife Trust staff are encouraging people to stuff living creatures into a bag and to then hit them on the head with something – presumably a handy rock.
Amazingly, this is legal.
But in my professional view (as a doctor) anyone who can do this must either be a psychopath or have psychopathic tendencies.
Serial killers and mass murderers usually start their evil work by killing animals.
And that is the truly scary thing: The Wildlife Trust is not just recruiting psychopaths. (Who else is going to volunteer to stuff squirrels into bags and then hit them on the head?) It is turning the psychopaths who volunteer into potential murderers.
Does the Wildlife Trust not realise that killing small animals will appeal to psychopaths? Do they think sweet little old ladies are going to volunteer for this evil work? Of course not. The Wildlife Trust will be recruiting its own small army of thugs. Are they incredibly naïve or incredibly stupid or both?
Do they not know that psychopaths who kill small animals may then progress to killing humans? Nearly all serial killers started their ‘careers’ by killing animals.
In my opinion, the ‘Crush a Squirrel’ campaign is nothing more nor less than an officially approved apprenticeship scheme which will train thousands of potential murderers, wife beaters and child abusers.
It is important to understand that the Wildlife Trust is organising a scheme which will be more barbaric and more harmful to mankind than fox hunting, bear baiting or cock fighting.
How can I make such a claim?
Simple.
In fox hunting, dog fighting and cock fighting (all of which are foul activities), the humans involved are at a distance to the actual killing. In fox hunting, it is the dogs which do the killing. In dog and cock fighting, the killing is done by animals – not humans.
But the Wildlife Trust’s scheme demands that human beings do the killing themselves. It’s a hands-on killing programme which is, I believe, pretty well guaranteed to create thousands of bullies, thugs, muggers and murderers.
There is, of a course, a mass of evidence available showing that people who are cruel to animals may progress to being cruel to people.
Cruelty to small animals is, indeed, regarded by criminologists as an important stepping stone in the development of dangerous criminals, wife beaters or child abusers.
The Wildlife Trust’s members may start off by bashing the skulls of squirrels but some of them will enjoy what they are doing so much that they could end up doing the same thing to humans. There is clear evidence showing a relationship between those who are cruel to animals and those who are cruel to humans. The sort of people who abuse animals (whether by killing dogs or cats, or by putting squirrels into a sack and then bashing them on the head) are the sort of people who end up abusing humans.
Here are some facts to back up my claim:
1. The police in the UK have been urged to keep records of people who have been cruel to animals. Members of the Wildlife Trust will presumably have to be included in those records.
2. ‘Violent behaviour towards animals is often a pointer to violent behaviour towards humans,’ said one police spokesman.
3. A spokesman for the probation officers’ union has stated: ‘There is a clear link between the torture and abuse of animals and violence against the person.’
4. A study performed in New Jersey, US, found animal abuse in nine out of ten households where there was violence against children. Frighteningly, a third of child victims of violence aged between four and twelve had physically or sexually abused animals.
5. Research in the US has shown that animal cruelty is a common factor among serial killers and so-called spree murderers.
6. A survey of 57 families guilty of child neglect or abuse, conducted by child protection teams around Newcastle, found examples of animal cruelty in 80% of cases.
7. Robert Thompson, who murdered toddler James Bulger, had a long history of cruelty and boasted of tying fireworks to the tails of dogs.
8. Railway rapist and multiple killer, David Mulcahy, bludgeoned a hedgehog to death in his schoolyard when he was 13-years-old.
9. Ian Kay, who killed a Woolworth manager in a raid (and later stabbed Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, in Broadmoor) once fed a stray kitten to his dog.
10. Boston Strangler, Albert de Salvo, killed cats and dogs.
11. Cannibal, Jeffrey Dahmer, killed 17 men and many animals and impaled the heads of dogs on sticks.
12. Peter Kurten, known as the Dusseldorf Monster, who murdered more than 50 people, practised bestiality on dogs as he tortured and killed them.
13. Luke Woodham set fire to his own dog and also stabbed his mother and killed two teenage girls.
14. David Berkowitz, who killed six people, also shot his neighbour’s dog and poisoned his mother’s parakeet.
15. Patrick Sherrill murdered 14 people and stole local pets for his dog to attack.
16. Jack Bassenti, a murderer and rapist, buried puppies alive.
17. Randy Roth who killed two wives, used an industrial sander on a frog and taped a cat to a car engine.
18. Edward Kemperer chopped up cats and killed his grandparents, mother and seven other women.
19. Henry Lee Lucas killed animals and had sex with their corpses and also killed his mother and his wife.
20. Michael Cartier, a murderer, threw a kitten through a closed window and pulled a rabbit’s legs out of their sockets.
Those are the facts. There is a painfully strong link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to people. The link is well substantiated.
So, how dare the Wildlife Trust organise such a terrible scheme?
What makes the red squirrel so special that the Wildlife Trust wants to encourage us to go out into the woods and beat grey squirrels to death with bricks and clubs?
I’ll tell you.
The only discernible difference is their colour. And their colour (and relative rarity in some parts of the country) makes the red squirrel more attractive to tourists and, therefore, to hoteliers.
The Wildlife Trust is a charity which claims to be ‘dedicated to the protection of nature’.
Huh?
Did they forget to mention in their mission statement that the bits of nature being protected must be both pretty and commercially attractive?
It seems to me that the raison d’etre of the Wildlife Trust is fraudulent; a downright lie.
What the hell difference does it make whether a squirrel is red or grey?
It’s like suggesting that a man (or woman) who is white (or black) is better than a man (or woman) who is black (or white).
It’s plain, unvarnished colour prejudice.
Try getting a Heritage Lottery grant for that!
Are we now going to kill people because they’re the wrong colour?
If the Wildlife Trust ever rules the world, will volunteers be recruited to kill all the whites because they stand in the way of the black people? Will the Wildlife Trust want to kill black people so that there will be more food for white people?
That’s the bottom line; that’s what the Wildlife Trust policy is really all about. It’s animal racism taken to the ultimate, blood curdling conclusion.
This is the most ill-conceived, nauseatingly indefensible scheme ever devised by a charity which claims it exists to protect ‘nature’.
I’ve studied squirrels for years and they are intelligent creatures. They have complex social lives. They have families. They are no threat to human life. They don’t attack babies. All they really want to do is to eat some nuts, bury some nuts ready for the winter, enjoy an energetic courtship ritual and have some babies.
Criminals, eh?
And the liberal luvvies (who I suspect were the ones who thought up this disgusting scheme) can be comforted by the knowledge that squirrels have never been known to vote Brexit or wave an England flag.
The people who support this wretched scheme, the ones who cheerfully endorse this unprovoked mass slaughter, probably think of themselves as environmentalists.
But though I suspect they are stupid enough and ignorant enough to drive electric cars, I bet they’re the sort of superficial environmentalists who aren’t quite prepared to go as far as giving up eating meat. The supporters of the ‘Squirrel Slaughter’ are, I bet, the sort of morons who favour a view of the world which is dominated by superficial, Guardian-style environmentalism; city-driven sentimentality devoid of understanding or genuine caring.
The BBC will, I have no doubt, support this scheme.
The damnable Springwatch programme endorsed and promoted a similar scheme when it was launched in a smaller way by a bunch of animal racists on the Isle of Anglesey.
In my view, the people behind this scheme have completely lost touch with reality and have been consumed by a twitter-like superficiality.
They have forgotten that we share our planet with animals. We don’t own planet earth. Grey squirrels aren’t visitors. They live here. They aren’t a threat to us in any way. Killing them is as absurd and as indecent as would be a scheme to kill horses because they aren’t striped like zebras.
The Wildlife Trust has forgotten that our superiority gives us massive responsibilities.
The Wildlife Trust has ridden roughshod over the notion that animals have rights and has come up with a grotesque idea which values grey squirrels as fashion accessories and regards grey squirrels as a commercial and aesthetic nuisance.
The bottom line is that people who can support a scheme like this cannot really give a stuff about animals - other than the cute cats seen on You Tube.
Anyone who believes in decency, morality and the rights of animals to be left alone whenever possible must object strongly to the policy now espoused, endorsed and promoted by the Wildlife Trust.
One thing is for sure: I bet the Wildlife Trust visitors wouldn’t like to be put into a sack and hit on the head.
Let’s hope the Trust’s psychopath training programme doesn’t result in too many mass murderers wandering their woodland glades.
So, what can we do about this?
Do not ever, ever give money or help to the Wildlife Trust. It is a disgusting organisation which deserves to be culled.
Let’s do everything we can to help ensure it doesn’t receive any more money from individuals or organisations.
Tell your friends and neighbours to boycott the Wildlife Trust. They must be stopped.
This is an organisation which needs to be put into a bag and hit on the head with a rock.
Copyright Vernon Coleman 2017
There are hundreds of free articles on www.vernoncoleman.com and www.vernoncoleman.co.uk
For a biography please see www.vernoncoleman.org or www.vernoncoleman.net
And there are over 60 books by Vernon Coleman available as ebooks on Amazon.
I’m afraid, however, that you have to pay for those. (But not a lot.)
Home