Modified:
13 Nov 2009
by Admin

Vote totals:

Yes:

86%

No:

14%

Neutral:

0%

 
Subscribe to This Debate
You are not currently subscribed to this debate.


Subscribe to Newsletter
Tell a Friend
(Use commas to separate)
Bookmark and Share


DEBATE: GREY SQUIRRELS - SHOULD WE EAT THEM?

The Guardian newspaper (UK) has announced that the grey squirrel is gaining popularity - as a meal. Costing approximately £3.50 per squirrel, the meat is said to be sweet, "like a cross between lamb and duck". One animal is said to feed one and a half adults.





GREY SQUIRRELS - SHOULD WE EAT THEM?


Not subject to claims of animal cruelty or mass production.


The squirrel is entirely free range and there are copious amounts available for the taking. They are not kept cooped up in small pens, are not subject to overcrowding or force feeding and there is little risk of the meat being tainted with antibiotic or hormone.

If squirrel were to become part of the mainstream diet, then it is inevitable that they would begin to be farmed in order to bring prices down through increased production. Then they would be subject to the same problems as any other mass produced food source.


What do you think?  Vote on this point below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No

GREY SQUIRRELS - SHOULD WE EAT THEM?


Low fat, versatile meat.


Squirrel meat is said to be very low fat, which can only be a good thing for this nation, having as it does a reputation for becoming rapidly obese.

The Guardian claims it is especially delicious in a Tandoori, or fricasseed with Cornish cream and walnuts, but really comes into its own as a Cornish squirrel pasty, for which the paper helpfully provides a recipe.



GREY SQUIRRELS - SHOULD WE EAT THEM?


Patriotic and green.


There are virtually no food miles involved in eating a squirrel, no plant processing, no excessive packaging, no need to import meat from foreign climes, and, say its fans, it's patriotic.

Grey squirrels are renowned for putting the currently protected red squirrel in its current state of verging on extinction.

"Eat a grey, save a red" comes the cry.



GREY SQUIRRELS - SHOULD WE EAT THEM?


Sustainable source.


At two litters a year, averaging five babies each time, the source isn't going to dry up any time soon.



GREY SQUIRRELS - SHOULD WE EAT THEM?


A relief for homeowners?


Squirrels like to live in attics, and why not? It's warm, comfortable and dry, just the place for a noisy, messy little creature to live. They are remarkably adept at raiding bird feeders and tables, scaring off garden birds, and cause untold damage to fruit bushes and trees.

But whilst some people can perhaps handle a little noise from the attic or buy squirrel-proof birdfeeders, there's a more worrying side to having bushy-tailed lodgers. Being rodents and having continuously growing teeth, squirrels chew, which does not make for a good tenant.

Chewing through electrical wiring, for example, puts the house at serious risk of a fire, or at the very least, electrocution to the unwitting householder. Damage to wooden joists and supports weakens the structure. None of this is good news for the homeowner, so on this note, removal or reduction of the furry lodgers is a good thing.



GREY SQUIRRELS - SHOULD WE EAT THEM?


Supporting local business.


Because the squirrel is slaughtered by local hunters, and sold by local butchers, it supports local business. Nobody can argue that this is a bad thing; chain supermarkets have been trying to dominate the market for some time by underpricing and undercutting local, family owned stores.

Often local stores are forced to go out of business as a result, leaving people unemployed, shops empty and High St's plummeting into decline.



GREY SQUIRRELS - SHOULD WE EAT THEM?


it is better than a cull and the carcass being destroyed.


They may only be small and you may not think that the grey squirrel is that much of a problem however as it has already been stated they are the reason for the decline in our native red squirrel. Grey squirrels where introduced by the Romans as a food source and left unmanaged spread the width and breadth of the UK. There have been talks about a cull for these small furry animals but surly it is better to kill them for food so that they are being used as a resource than to be culled which will cost time and money. Use the grey squirrel for what it was intended a food source after all we eat ducks and people go and feed them and don’t think anything of eating them with their Chinese, maybe even pigeon could be used in the same way.



GREY SQUIRRELS - SHOULD WE EAT THEM?


But is it safe?


You raise a valid concern, but if it turns out the virus does not transmit to humans, then eating the virus-carrying squirrel would benefit both humans and red squirrels. I have no data, but I'm willing to bet that a non-negligible portion of the foods we eat carry viruses to which we are not susceptible. Even if I'm wrong, the point remains that it is not whether the meat contains a virus that is the question. It is whether that virus is 1) transmittable and 2) harmful.

To quote a friend of mine "there are two kinds of squirrels: fryers and stewers. All stewers were once fryers, but not all fryers will become stewers" :)

Grey squirrels carry the squirrelpox virus. Although this does not affect them, it is highly contagious and fatal to red squirrels, killing them in as little as 15 days. Do we really want to eat meat carrying a virus? Is it transmissible to humans? Do we want another "mad cow" disease epidemic on our hands? Maybe it should be kept off the shelves and in the trees until we are assured that it carries no risk to humans. And on a slightly light-hearted note, but one to certainly consider – will the meat be suitable for nut allergy sufferers?


What do you think?  Vote on this point below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No

GREY SQUIRRELS - SHOULD WE EAT THEM?


Not as cheap as it first appears?


At around £3.50 per animal, for a large family or for a dinner party, the cost is rather prohibitive. For ten guests, the meat alone would cost you roughly £35, whereas a more traditional large turkey or joint could be purchased for less.



GREY SQUIRRELS - SHOULD WE EAT THEM?


Finally - the "yuk" factor!


First of all, I don't believe fleas are likely to negatively impact the quality of meat! And I believe it is exactly this 'yuk' sensitivity that has so much of the population refusing to eat anything but sanitised pre-packaged meat - or refusing to eat vegetables don't conform to EU shape standards.

However, I think the point may be null and void - as a comparison can be drawn between urban or country squirrels just as it can between urban pigeons and wood pigeons. And in the same way we choose not to eat urban pigeons, we also choose only to hunt country squirrels, who, as the article states, live on a diet of "berries and nuts".

Plainly and simply, there’s the "yuk" factor. As the Observer newspaper’s resident restaurant critic, Jay Rayne stated, "he had never tasted squirrel, but if he did have it for dinner ‘it would have to be a big, fat country squirrel and not one of the mangy urban ones you see in cities’". And that’s a good point. Having seen the way squirrels live, compared to a free range chicken, for example, I would have to pass on the squirrel on this point alone. Given the choice between an animal that rummages through dustbins, eats rotting scraps of household waste and is often infested with fleas or a chicken that has been bedded on nice clean straw, and let out to wander through a clean green field and fed on juicy yellow corn, then I say "pass the sage and onion stuffing", every time!


What do you think?  Vote on this point below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No


Vote on the overall debate: Grey Squirrels - should we eat them?

What do you think?  Vote on this debate below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No
1. Not subject to claims of animal cruelty or mass production.
# 1

The squirrel is entirely free range and there are copious amounts available for the taking. They are not kept cooped up in small pens, are not subject to overcrowding or force feeding and there is little risk of the meat being tainted with antibiotic or hormone.

dhc

|

09:14, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367


# 2

If squirrel were to become part of the mainstream diet, then it is inevitable that they would begin to be farmed in order to bring prices down through increased production. Then they would be subject to the same problems as any other mass produced food source.

dhc

|

09:14, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367



2. Low fat, versatile meat.
# 1

Squirrel meat is said to be very low fat, which can only be a good thing for this nation, having as it does a reputation for becoming rapidly obese.

The Guardian claims it is especially delicious in a Tandoori, or fricasseed with Cornish cream and walnuts, but really comes into its own as a Cornish squirrel pasty, for which the paper helpfully provides a recipe.

dhc

|

09:20, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367



3. Patriotic and green.
# 1

There are virtually no food miles involved in eating a squirrel, no plant processing, no excessive packaging, no need to import meat from foreign climes, and, say its fans, it's patriotic.

Grey squirrels are renowned for putting the currently protected red squirrel in its current state of verging on extinction.

"Eat a grey, save a red" comes the cry.

dhc

|

09:22, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367



4. Sustainable source.
# 1

At two litters a year, averaging five babies each time, the source isn't going to dry up any time soon.

dhc

|

09:26, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367



5. A relief for homeowners?
# 1

Squirrels like to live in attics, and why not? It's warm, comfortable and dry, just the place for a noisy, messy little creature to live. They are remarkably adept at raiding bird feeders and tables, scaring off garden birds, and cause untold damage to fruit bushes and trees.

But whilst some people can perhaps handle a little noise from the attic or buy squirrel-proof birdfeeders, there's a more worrying side to having bushy-tailed lodgers. Being rodents and having continuously growing teeth, squirrels chew, which does not make for a good tenant.

Chewing through electrical wiring, for example, puts the house at serious risk of a fire, or at the very least, electrocution to the unwitting householder. Damage to wooden joists and supports weakens the structure. None of this is good news for the homeowner, so on this note, removal or reduction of the furry lodgers is a good thing.

dhc

|

09:34, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367



6. Supporting local business.
# 1

Because the squirrel is slaughtered by local hunters, and sold by local butchers, it supports local business. Nobody can argue that this is a bad thing; chain supermarkets have been trying to dominate the market for some time by underpricing and undercutting local, family owned stores.

Often local stores are forced to go out of business as a result, leaving people unemployed, shops empty and High St's plummeting into decline.

dhc

|

09:38, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367



7. it is better than a cull and the carcass being destroyed.
# 1

They may only be small and you may not think that the grey squirrel is that much of a problem however as it has already been stated they are the reason for the decline in our native red squirrel. Grey squirrels where introduced by the Romans as a food source and left unmanaged spread the width and breadth of the UK. There have been talks about a cull for these small furry animals but surly it is better to kill them for food so that they are being used as a resource than to be culled which will cost time and money. Use the grey squirrel for what it was intended a food source after all we eat ducks and people go and feed them and don’t think anything of eating them with their Chinese, maybe even pigeon could be used in the same way.

dhc

|

15:20, 28 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367



1. But is it safe?
# 1

Grey squirrels carry the squirrelpox virus. Although this does not affect them, it is highly contagious and fatal to red squirrels, killing them in as little as 15 days. Do we really want to eat meat carrying a virus? Is it transmissible to humans? Do we want another "mad cow" disease epidemic on our hands? Maybe it should be kept off the shelves and in the trees until we are assured that it carries no risk to humans. And on a slightly light-hearted note, but one to certainly consider – will the meat be suitable for nut allergy sufferers?

dhc

|

09:43, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367


# 2

You raise a valid concern, but if it turns out the virus does not transmit to humans, then eating the virus-carrying squirrel would benefit both humans and red squirrels. I have no data, but I'm willing to bet that a non-negligible portion of the foods we eat carry viruses to which we are not susceptible. Even if I'm wrong, the point remains that it is not whether the meat contains a virus that is the question. It is whether that virus is 1) transmittable and 2) harmful.

To quote a friend of mine "there are two kinds of squirrels: fryers and stewers. All stewers were once fryers, but not all fryers will become stewers" :)

dhc

|

09:43, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367



2. Not as cheap as it first appears?
# 1

At around £3.50 per animal, for a large family or for a dinner party, the cost is rather prohibitive. For ten guests, the meat alone would cost you roughly £35, whereas a more traditional large turkey or joint could be purchased for less.

dhc

|

09:44, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367



3. Finally - the "yuk" factor!
# 1

Plainly and simply, there’s the "yuk" factor. As the Observer newspaper’s resident restaurant critic, Jay Rayne stated, "he had never tasted squirrel, but if he did have it for dinner ‘it would have to be a big, fat country squirrel and not one of the mangy urban ones you see in cities’". And that’s a good point. Having seen the way squirrels live, compared to a free range chicken, for example, I would have to pass on the squirrel on this point alone. Given the choice between an animal that rummages through dustbins, eats rotting scraps of household waste and is often infested with fleas or a chicken that has been bedded on nice clean straw, and let out to wander through a clean green field and fed on juicy yellow corn, then I say "pass the sage and onion stuffing", every time!

dhc

|

09:45, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367


# 2

First of all, I don't believe fleas are likely to negatively impact the quality of meat! And I believe it is exactly this 'yuk' sensitivity that has so much of the population refusing to eat anything but sanitised pre-packaged meat - or refusing to eat vegetables don't conform to EU shape standards.

However, I think the point may be null and void - as a comparison can be drawn between urban or country squirrels just as it can between urban pigeons and wood pigeons. And in the same way we choose not to eat urban pigeons, we also choose only to hunt country squirrels, who, as the article states, live on a diet of "berries and nuts".

dhc

|

09:45, 11 May 08

|

Karma Score: 1367



Loading...