First, this is the standard reply sent to protestors by SNH

Hello

Thanks for your e-mail. George is snowed under with work at the moment and has asked me to reply.

First of all an apology. Clearly the unfortunate situation of the Uist hedgehogs has whizzed around the internet and we are receiving many messages about this. We normally like to give people direct replies to such mails, and answer the specific points people make. I am afraid however that we are now receiving too many mails from across the world to do this so the following is I am afraid a blanket message. It aims to answer the most common points people are putting to us.

First of all, here is the text of an explanatory leaflet we have printed up about what the Uist Wader Project is up to, and why:  

Removal of hedgehogs from the Uists and Benbecula

Hedgehogs are not native to the Western Isles of Scotland. They were introduced to the islands in the mid-1970's to help control garden pests but have since expanded in numbers to around 5000 animals. They are now recognised to be a major threat to the internationally-important populations of breeding wading birds there. The purpose of this leaflet is to provide background to the problems this presents, and explain what is required to deal with the problems.

North Uist, Benbecula and South Uist are one of the best areas in the world for ground-nesting birds like lapwings, snipe and redshank. In recent years, however, numbers of these birds have halved on the Uists because hedgehogs are eating their eggs and reducing the number of young which are born. Unfortunately the birds are not able to compensate for these losses and are rapidly declining in number.

Everyone agrees that, for the sake of the unique Uist bird populations, the impact the hedgehogs are having has to be reduced or, preferably, removed.

Several management options have been tested. Fences have been erected to stop the hedgehog expanding across the islands but these unfortunately break or the rabbits on the islands undermine these. So, this option is not feasible on such a large-scale. Investigations have also been made into sterilising the hedgehogs but there are currently no appropriate methods available. We will continue to investigate this for the future, as techniques might change.
This leaves two options: move all the animals from the islands to the mainland or undertake a cull. On the face of it, moving them to the mainland seems the most humane option. However, when the Uist Wader Project considered it in detail, we found that it wasn't necessarily the best option.

Scientific studies on the movement of hedgehogs has shown that the number of hedgehogs able to survive in a given area is limited by the food available, quality of the habitat and presence of predators, such as badgers. Experimental studies have also shown that, when animals are added to an area, an equal number of animals will die; both relocated animals and animals which were previously resident in the area. Consequently, there is no net gain to the national population. Finally, Uist hedgehogs are not currently exposed to some of the diseases prevalent on the mainland and would have no natural resistance to these.

In short, moving hedgehogs from the Uists is not straightforward, not necessarily humane, and would not contribute to the conservation of the mainland hedgehog population.

It has been argued that hedgehog rehabilitation is common practice on the mainland and that evidence exists that relocation works. However, most of these rehabilitated animals are never monitored and the small amount of data that is available indicates that there are a significant number of deaths amongst these animals also. Rehabilitation has also never been conducted on the scale necessary to relocate all the Uist hedgehogs.

Not everyone agrees with our decision and some groups have asked us to give them any animals we catch, instead of culling them. What we have said is that if the groups design a scientific trial which proves that our scientific information base is incorrect, both in terms of what happens to the animals relocated and the impacts on mainland hedgehogs, then we would review the option of using translocation as a technique for control. SNH has given a lot of advice on the design of an appropriate trial, however, the organisations that want to relocate the animals have not yet been able to meet some of the basic criteria of the trial design.

Work for Spring 2003

Hedgehogs are spread across South Uist and Benbecula but are only just colonising North Uist. As some of the protected birds live on this island also, the initial plan is to remove the limited number of hedgehogs there to stop the problem spreading. This will probably involve the removal of around 200 animals in Spring 2003.

Animals will be live-trapped or picked up when they're foraging at night. Highly trained sniffer dogs will also be used to detect hedgehog dens, but will not be allowed to touch the animals. Captured animals will be anaesthetised by gas and killed by use of a lethal injection whilst under sedation. This will be done by trained staff under the supervision of vets and will be subject to independent monitoring by the SSPCA. Captures will take place between their emergence from hibernation - in early April - until the birth of the first young in late May. There are no plans to remove animals after this to avoid the risks of leaving orphaned young in the field.

The problem which has arisen is not the fault of the hedgehogs but is the result of the misguided actions of people introducing a non-native species to the islands. Unfortunately there is no easy solution to the problem. Relocation of the hedgehogs would merely be raising new risks and problems for the animals and the environment. In short, we should not solve the problem by creating others.

Culling is regrettable but we feel it is the only realistic option to protect both the unique wildlife of the island and minimise the suffering to the hedgehogs.   You can get more detailed background on the years of work we have put in on this by going to the snh website at www.snh.org.uk

Now I would like to respond to a few common points people make.

WHY DON'T YOU HAND OVER THE ANIMALS TO THE VALIANT RESCUE OPERATION?

Well, whilst we respect the intentions of these groups we feel that what they propose to do is inhumane. It will cause suffering and slow death to many hedgehogs, both the ones they move and the ones already on the mainland. Translocation, in our view is not as easy as these people claim. We are also very concerned that they refuse to fully monitor what happens to the animals they are going to move. We have always said that if a proper scientific trial were run by the rescuers then we would hand over our animals instead of culling. Then we would be able to see if they really could work the miracles they claim they can. If they can then we have a neat solution for the rest of the 5000 hedgehogs we need to remove from the islands. However, the rescue groups have not produced a robust plan for monitoring the effects of their activities. We have always remained willing to talk to them about this but they chose to break off communications with us earlier this year, and have instead decided on an ad-hoc airlift with no proper scientific monitoring of its impact on the animals. However, we are going to be in this situation for some years to come, so the groups can come to us with new proposals at any time, and we will gladly discuss. As soon as they give us proper monitoring we can talk about handing over our animals to them.

HOW CAN YOU DO THIS WHEN PUBLIC OPINION IS AGAINST YOU?

I am not aware that public opinion is against us. Certainly on the islands with this hedgehog problem, public opinion is very much in our favour. We have the support of such democratic representatives as the local member of the Scottish Parliament, the local community council and the convenor of the Western Isles Council. We also have the editorial backing of a serious Scottish national paper - The Herald. You don't normally get editorial backing from the press if the public are against you.

Certainly further afield the cull is controversial and I do not doubt the sincerity of the mails we are receiving from around the world. However these are from people who do not have a great deal of information to form their opinion on. Many of them, when given the details of the situation, are seeing that the situation is not quite as black and white as it first appears.

WHAT RIGHT HAVE YOU TO DECIDE THE BIRDS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE HEDGEHOGS.

Well as far as these islands are concerned the birds are native and are being decimated. The hedgehogs are non-native and are causing the problem.

We aren't blaming the hogs or seeking to punish them. The sad fact is though that to protect the birds the hogs have to go. If we did nothing then eventually there would only be a few birds and hog numbers would also collapse.

It is significant I think that even the hedgehog groups organising the rescue mission accept that the hogs must be removed from the islands.   If you have read this far then thank you sincerely for taking the time to find out more about what we are doing and why.

This work is being carried out by people who are passionate about wildlife. It gives us no joy whatsoever to kill these animals. Please understand that we genuinely believe this is the best way to protect the birds whilst treating the hedgehogs as humanely as possible.   Can I finish with a plea.

Please do all you can to publicise this terrible situation around the world. That way at least it can serve as a warning that nobody should ever, even if for the most innocent purposes, release non-native species to any habitat around the world.

Email from Dr T Bunnell:

Dear Mr Anderson

  I am a lecturer in biological sciences at the University of Hull.

I also run a hedgehog sanctuary in York and publish many papers using collected data, in international journals such as Lutra. website: www.webserve.co.uk/bunnell  

As a biologist, with an expertise in mammal conservation, I am able to provided an informed opinion with regard to the proposed cull of hedgehogs in Uist.

I understand fully the need to remove hedgehogs from the island, considering the lack of natural predators and the threat posed to ground-nesting wading birds. However, having spoken to someone from St Tiggywinkles hospital today, I am extremely concerned to discover that, despite the proposed efforts of organised volunteers to remove hedgehogs from the island, any found by those actively involved in the cull will be gassed then euthenased by lethal injection. This course of action defies reason.  

Having attended conferences where all up-to-date research (including my own) on hedgehog welfare, rehabilitation and relocation, was disseminated I am aware that it has been firmly established that hedgehogs can be relocated without any distress being caused to the animal. In addition, careful and considerate relocation will avoid any effects on existing populations on mainland Britain. Indeed, follow-up studies to determine the survival rate of rehabilitated hedgehogs have been carried out and shown that survival rates are high and not influenced by any period spent in captivity during the rehabilitation period.  

 I would appreciate a reply to this correspondence, bearing in mind that all mammal conservationists, University lecturers in the biological sciences, animal welfare groups and the RSPCA are all anxiously awaiting the outcome of this crisis.  

I sincerely trust that you will allow the volunteers who are arriving in Uist, with the aim of collecting and relocating the hedgehogs, to carry out their work without hindrance, and that any animals found by the culling teams will be handed over to the volunteers and not unnecessarily killed.  

Many hundreds of people, such as myself, give up many hours of their time to help injured and sick hedgehogs and return them back to the wild.  

Surely, at a time in our history when the hedgehog has been afforded endangered species protection in mainland Britain due to its steady decline in numbers, now would be the time to attempt to redress the balance, and not to act in a cavalier manner by needless slaughtering of 5000 of the species.  

Yours in anticipation  

Dr Toni Bunnell University of Hull

Reply from Dr Cole Scientific Officer with SNH

Dear Dr Bunnell  

Your e-mail to George Anderson, requesting clarification on the proposed cull of hedgehogs on the Uists, has been passed to me to respond. I am the Advisory Officer working on this project.  

I appreciate that you have experience of hedgehog rehabilitation and am aware of your publications and website.  However, I must question the context of your statement in which you conclude that "it has been firmly established that hedgehogs can be relocated without any distress being caused to the animal".  

Information on the "relocation" of hedgehogs has been obtained largely from small-scale investigations on rehabilitated animals.  Whilst I would also dispute your interpretation that "survival rates are high" (as many of these studies show upwards of 20-30% mortality and Nigel Reeve recorded mortality up to 75% in one study),  this point became academic following a meeting with the animal welfare interest groups (including St Tiggywinkles) in London in September 2002. 

During this meeting, SNH were requested, by the rehabilitation organisations, to remove data from rehabilitation studies as this was "not comparable" with the situation presented by the translocation of hedgehogs from the wild on the Uists and Benbecula. 

Consequently, whilst we could debate the precise interpretation of data from rehabilation work, this is not applicable to the current focus of translocating large numbers of animals from the islands to the mainland.   Under these circumstances, the evidence supporting the case for wild-wild translocation is limited to a much smaller number of studies. 

We recognise that these studies were conducted under specific conditions and appreciate that the animal welfare organisations wish to conduct releases differently.  However, given the issues which these studies have raised, it would be irresponsible of the Uist Wader Project to contribute to the translocation of hedgehogs from the islands without robust scientific evidence to counter the information in the published literature on the risks of this action. 

For this reason, whilst the Uist Wader Project partners are satisfied with the scientific rationale underlying our current actions, the decision made by the SNH Board in December 2002 made allowances for other organisations to conduct a scientific study. 

This should include the effects on indigenous hedgehog populations to ensure that the recipient area also suffers no adverse effects.  Unfortunately, no organisation has prepared a suitable study for this year although SNH remain willing to contribute advice and scientific support to any proposals in the future.  

Finally, I should note that, contrary to your suggestion, the hedgehog receives no "endangered species protection in mainland Britain" other than than afforded under Section 11 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).  This is confined to protecting individual animals against specified methods of killing and taking but does not afford protection to the species itself.  (This is true, also, of the welfare protection afforded under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996.)  Whilst recent studies funded by the PTES and JNCC have inferred potential problems in some parts of the south of England, there is currently no evidence of a national decline in the species. 

Moreover, translocation of animals into areas in which the species has been lost or declined is a highly inappropriate action until such times as the risk to the previous population has been identified and removed (IUCN Guidelines).  As no such work has been conducted for these areas, the translocation of animals into these sites would only expose the released animals to the same risks as their predecessors. 

This is not the actions of a responsible agency and does not constitute species conservation.  

Whilst I appreciate your concerns about the fate of the hedgehogs on the Uists and Benbecula, I hope the above goes some way to explaining the basis for our position.  

Yours sincerely  

Dr Mairi Cole Species Advisory Officer Habitats & Species Unit
Scottish Natural Heritage
2 Anderson Place
Edinburgh
EH6 5NP

Dr Bunnell's reply

Dear Dr Cole,

  Thank you for your response to my comments about the hedgehog cull. I have read your argument very carefully and would like to make a few further points.  

With regard to the relocation studies carried out by Nigel Reeve, Pat Morris, and others, survival rates were shown to be as high as 80%. Any instances where studies showed a higher mortality rate involved the release of animals into areas with a high badger density and/or in close proximity to roads. The study where you mention a 75% mortality rate was carried out by Patrick Doncaster, did not involve rehabilitated animals, and involved the introduction of an unusually high number (40) of hedgehogs into a relatively small area.

  The lack of studies involving the monitoring of much larger numbers of rehabilitated hedgehogs is not due to lack of interest on the part of researchers, but rather the absence of the necessary funding.   I attended a conference in Peterborough in October 2002, where Nigel Reeve presented the results of his feasibility study and mentioned that he would have loved to have had the opportunity to carry out a large scale monitoring programme of released rehabilitated hedgehogs.

Having completed a successful feasibility study he was more than willing to take this further. It would have provided valuable information regarding the long term progress of hedgehogs released back to the wild.   You mention that the evidence supporting the case for wild-wild translocation is limited to a small number of studies.

I am surprised, to say the least, that SNH did not seize the opportunity to offer funding for such a study to take place. Considering that £90,000 of tax payers money has been allocated for the destruction of 200 hedgehogs over a 7-week period, it would have been a much more logical step to have allocated this money to enable Nigel Reeve (or another interested researcher) to carry out  a long-term monitoring programme.

  No serious effort appears to have been made by SNH to allow sufficient time/funding for a substantial research study to be carried out. SNH must have been aware of the effects of hedgehogs on the populations of ground-nesting birds for some time. This being the case, it begs the question, 'why was funding not made available to allow the necessary research to  be undertaken?'.

This would have been a far better (and kinder) option than the current one of condemning to death 5000 animals purely because SNH has decided (without supportive evidence) that they would suffer more if they were relocated.   I have been informed by my veterinary practice, which deals regularly with sick hedgehogs, that gassing a hedgehog, in the first instance, would cause a great deal of distress to the animal.  

It should be noted that all rehabilitated hedgehogs are only released back into the wild at carefully chosen sites, following a strict code of practice. Care is taken to limit release to certain areas so that the wild population is not affected by a sudden influx of rehabilitated animals.   It also worries me that SNH have a less than comprehensive knowledge of the natural history of the hedgehog.

The decision to begin the cull when hedgehogs are, for the most part, still hibernating in the Islands of Uist and Benbecula, seems slightly at odds with the claim that the Uist Wader Project partners have established a scientific rationale which underlies the current actions of SNH.

  In addition, the comment by George Anderson on national British radio that " a hedgehog relocated from Uist/Benbecula to mainland Britain might be bitten by a flea and die" is nothing short of absolute rubbish. This comment demonstrates an inordinate lack of the kind of knowledge needed in order to make far-reaching decisions regarding the culling/relocation of hedgehogs.  

Statements made by SNH regarding the chances of relocated hedgehogs catching various diseases such as lungworm (caused by nematodes) or mange etc are also fundamentally flawed. The Uist/Benbecula hedgehogs are already host to the normal pathogens and parasites commonly found in mainland British hedgehogs, and which are normally asymptomatic.

  Your comment that there is currently no evidence of a decline in the species is inaccurate. Various mammal groups throughout Britain have, for many years, collected data regarding road kills (currently the most reliable indicator of hedgehog numbers), prompting the Mammal Society to announce in 1999 that hedgehog populations were declining.   The protection afforded to the hedgehog under Section 11 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is, as you say, confined to protecting individual animals against specified methods of killing and taking but does not afford protection to the species itself. Surely, this, statement, by definition, confers protection on individual hedgehogs, a protection which SNH has chosen to ignore.  

Essentially then, I disagree with the reasons you put forward to justify the senseless and needless slaughter of 5000 hedgehogs that could have been carefully and sensitively relocated to chosen sites in mainland Britain.  

Yours Sincerely  
Dr Toni Bunnell
University of Hull
UK

Back to Campaign Index