Misguided activists who caused mink scourge

SOME problems affecting our environment start "small" so no one bothers, or exercises foresight. When they become "big" they may be swept under some Ministerial carpet, or the game of "pass the parcel" is played.

So it has been with the infestation of our country by that savage, and alien mink. Remember when it was "posh" to wear a mink coat? They cost a bomb too – 100 mink were required to create a full length mink coat. There was big money in mink. So they were imported ad-lib. Mink farms were established so that they could multiply.

Then the animal rights brigade decided to break into the farms and "liberate" the mink. Did they realise that they would colonise the whole country and kill native wildlife – animals (not only water voles), birds (especially coots, moorhens and ducks, and any bird nesting in trees?

Later the mink found the sea bird colonies on the coast and of course, they took fish, whether coarse, salmon or trout, especially now that eels are disappearing from northern Europe.

Did they also realise, as 85 per cent of the mink in the farms had the dreaded Aleutian disease, that in the wild these predators can infect indirectly the otters – on which millions of pounds of public money have been spent to aid their recovery?

So there is the big problem – who is to cull the mink, and that severely?

The English authorities passed the parcel, saying the mink are a pest and individual farmers and other landowners should cull them. But for any one of them to do this, would be a waste of time and money.

If in one river area one owner got rid of 50 mink, those in adjoining areas, for ever seeking new territories as the young become adult, would soon be there. If half the 50 killed were males, that suggests an area covering over 25 miles along the river.

Concerted action, organised and funded, is the only answer. Only the Scottish Authority has done this in certain areas. One confined to the Outer Hebrides cost them 1.65m and was not very successful.

An effective national cull would now cost many millions of pounds. Justice suggests that those animal rights activists should foot the bill or do the culling.

Which raises a question. Is it not time for the dozen or so such organisations to be investigated?

Not only are their actions a matter of public concern, they want to ban all angling, alleging that fish suffer pain when hooked.

As they chose to ignore scientific and other evidence that fish are so constructed that they cannot suffer pain, their motives need to be assessed.

So should they not be required to identify their officers, their background experience and any qualifications, and for their sources of funds to be disclosed?

Any members of the public subscribing to these bodies are entitled to have these details, and annual audited accounts would be desirable.

There is a precedent for the government to apply regulations to bodies attracting public funds – the charities.

It would be timely for the country sports organisations, to press for this action.

Any case which the "anti" organisations can make can then be compared by the public with the benefits from country sports – the billions of pounds contributed to the national and local economies, the conservation of the countryside which is their constant endeavour, the 20m-plus subsidising the Environment Agency by anglers; licence fees, and overall, the need for their great therapeutic value, providing recreations promoting health of mind as well as body, and antidote to the stress of modern life.

As the cost of a mink cull runs into millions of pounds it is unlikely a new Government will fund it, so the ball will be in the court of voluntary organisations working together.

The multi-million pound RSPCA with the opportunity of saving so much of our wildlife from the cruel deaths by mink, could take the lead. Or will it?

CW 8/5/10