Conservation is a three-legged stool

The 'balance of nature' isn't always as it seems, says David Whitby, and predator control must work alongside habitat and food supply

- David Whitby

A friend of mine was recently walking on his farm when he happened upon a lady with an off-lead dog, a long way from any of the many footpaths that transect his land. He politely pointed out both misdemeanours, adding the scare tactic of ‘snares set’ rather than request for the dog to be kept away from ground-nesting birds and roe kids, appealing to a concern she may have for her dog rather than her obvious lack of it for wildlife. However, the lady simply robustly berated him for killing foxes.

Never one to back away from a fight, my friend related the tale of the dead ducklings he had found the day before because a fox had killed the brooding duck. “That is nature’s way,” the irate lady replied, but is any of the scenario really nature’s way?

If she meant that it is quite natural for a fox to kill a duck then yes, it is ‘nature’s way’, and any tugging at the heartstrings over the death of orphaned fluffy ducklings did not work. Indeed, it is only fair to say that there are no creatures more capable of serious heartstring tugs than fluffy fox cubs that would inevitably also be orphaned if my friend got a chance.

The lady added that the ducks would only be shot anyway, and she would rather the fox had them. Quite possibly true about the shooting and she is very welcome to her preference of the ducks’ eventual demise. Here, I have to say, my friend made a simple mistake — with many people it does not work using any of our quarry as a reason for controlling predators or limiting the access of people and dogs.