Red in tooth and claw

I am fascinated by predators and our perceptions of them, the way in which people can react so aggressively to the presence of a sparrowhawk in their garden or to the sight of a magpie with a chick in its bill. Many of us seem unable to let nature act out its daily performance without interfering or choosing sides. Anger at the loss of a blue tit to a sparrowhawk is not mirrored when a blue tit predates a caterpillar or a blackbird pulls up and dispatches an earthworm. Why is this? There is no ecological difference between these various acts of predation, so why should we accept one and challenge another? I think that it has a great deal to do with our perceptions and the affinities we establish with certain creatures, while largely ignoring many thousands of others. Examine any list of our favourite animals and the chances are that those at the top of the list will be furred or feathered. Even within birds and mammals, we have our favourites. For example, while magpies are widely disliked for their predation of young birds and eggs, we are delighted to see a great spotted woodpecker, even though it is also a predator of nesting birds. Great spotted woodpeckers regularly break into tit nest boxes, first tapping the box to elicit a response from the nestlings (thus determining that it is occupied) and then drilling in to extract a meal.

It is essential to understand that nature is “red in tooth and claw”; it is cruel and vicious and unsympathetic. We should not impose our moral values onto wild creatures but instead accept that they are following their natural instincts. Accepting predation in all its forms is, I believe, an important step towards reconnecting with the natural world. By imposing our views of what is and is not acceptable we are distancing ourselves, setting ourselves apart in a way that is unhealthy and, potentially, unsustainable.

A failure to understand the ways in which populations of different species interact, through processes like predation, can reinforce misguided views about the nature of predation. I have received no end of letters over the years from people who have been quick to point an accusatory finger at birds of prey, calling for a cull of their numbers to halt the decline in various songbird populations. Yet, there is no scientific evidence to implicate predators in the declines of our songbirds. The evidence that is there supports the hypothesis that it is habitat change (through agricultural intensification and changing woodland management practices) that is the root cause. However, the act of predation unsettles us and it is easy for some to blame avian predators.