Hi Jennifer,
The Siberian flying squirrel in Finland and Estonia are an inhabitant of the Palaearctic taiga. It can not fly like a bat , but it can glide up to 75 metres.
It prefers old nest holes made by woodpeckers , but may also nest in bird boxes.
In Finland it is famous for it’s conlict between squirrel conservationists and forestry.
It is listed in the Finnish Red Book and classified as endangered in Estonian Red Book.
Cheers,
Ann
Sweden
PS. Photos courtesy by Estonian Fund for Nature
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Ann,
Thanks for the pictures and information. I especially like the second picture… it puts a smile on the face!
And tell us more about squirrel conservation in Finland.
very cute indeed!
Very cute Ann!
Convergent evolution means that Australia has gliding marsupials, not rodents. Part of the possum and phalanger group, gliders include the greater glider (about the size of a large cat), the yellow-bellied glider, the mahogany glider, the squirrel glider and sugar glider, and the tiny feathertail glider.
Gliding squirrels occur in a number of countries, such as North America, South-east Asia and Europe.
There is also a gliding animal known as a colugo (incorrectly referred to as a flying lemur), now thought to be closely related to primates.
Some amphibians and reptiles also glide.
Thanks all for the nice response.
Jennifer,
In Finland conservationists and forestry have been involved in many high court cases. The problem is that the squirrels and the loggers compete for same trees, mixed old growth trees, mainly aspens. Some loggers call also the flying squirrels for pest.
But now every Finnish developer know that it is wise to look for flying squirrels in the Environment Impact Assessment.
It is as well important to leave special trees left along roadsides during construction work for the squirrels. It is also important with ” corridors”.
In Finland the flying squirrels is classified as ” vulnerable” and the squirrel is smaller than the European Red Squirrel.
It has a status as an iconic animal.
Ann, can you tell us what size an adult grows to, ie cm from nose to vent, vent to tail, weight and longevity etc?
Thanks Ann,
Refreshing change from climate drivel.
P.S. I hope your Uncle Vladimir is well. I have not heard from my Uncle Adolph since 1945. I am very worried about him. Do you think he is in Estonia?
Ian,
Head and tail lenght : 23 -35 cm
Weight : 80 -150 gr
Lifespan : 14,2 years
BTW, I have heard that the little fellow is promiscuous!!!
Davey,
Doubt very much the despots are hiding out in Estonia , as they were occupied both by Stalin and Hitler during WWII.
Hi Ann,
Do you know what other factors effect mortality? You mentioned trees near roads and wildlife corridors. Gliders and some other native animals in Australia suffer losses as a result of barbed wire fences, and there are some incidences of road kill.
Hi Libby,
The main threat is forestry, so it’s important to think about landscape connectivity. Landscape connectivity has been identified as a key factor preserving populations. Connectivity is a process that facilitates movement through landscapes.
The flying squirrels may also fall prey to owls and hawks.
The flying squirrels are mainly vegetarian but as other squirrels they also eat bird eggs.
Reasearch is currently carried out with telemetry.
Libby,
Barbed wired fences are a nuisance for wildlife ( and horses), might be good for cows? but there are lots of accidents including barbed wired fences.
Don’t know why they aren’t banned????
The design of the flying squirrel seems ideal…
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=fc04711d-39a8-4c0a-8e66-a4f90d4a42a5
Yet, of all the extraordinary artifice of woodsmen and woodwrights over the past millenia in the provision of containers, vehicles, and various forms of shelter for just about every living creature on the planet, the intellectual giants of the green movement have decreed that none of those skills may be used to produce houses for the creatures that actually live in the forests from which the entire process begins.
We are told that hollow using species will “sometimes” use man made structures. But any shortage of statistical evidence of this use is based solely on the fact that most forests have few such structures for them to make use of, rather than any reluctance, on the part of the animals, to use them. Indeed, the evidence is very clear that whenever such structures are available, they will be used, often in preference to naturally produced alternatives.
But I have been officially informed that conducting research into the attributes of nest hollows that wildlife actually value is “not a priority” under national environmental research funding programs.
The sole purpose, in the minds of the green movement, for nest using wildlife is as a pretext to deny forest owners access to their own property. They make lip service to enhancing biodiversity and protecting species but when put to the test, as usual, they failed dismally.
>Indeed, the evidence is very clear that whenever such structures are available, they will be used, often in preference to naturally produced alternatives.
I seem to recall this was covered somewhere else. Others here have asked you, and you have readily refused, but what ‘clear’ ‘EVIDENCE’ do you have that they will ‘often’ use artificial structures ‘in preference to naturally produced alternatives’? See if you can come up with something other than a Mottism, otherwise you are spouting bulldust again.
“The main threat is forestry”
???
So: sustainable forestry, which supports squirrel populations, is shut down by urban-socialists to ‘save the squirrels’. The forest then has no value because the property owner cannot exploit it, so he sells out to a Finnish Developer who pays another urban-socialist to write an EIS which allows him to clear the forest for development?
I rather think the main threat is urban-socialists…
Forester,
Apologises for this statement , what I actually meant was ” logging is a big problem for flying squirrels”. The loggers and squirrels often compete for the same trees.
I’m not opposed to sustainable and responsible forestry.
Ian,
Sometimes the F.S live in summer cottages….
Statement from squirrel conservationists:
“Although local environmental authorities do not give derogations for logging in Finland, as it is not in the ‘overriding public interest’, in practice the conservation of flying squirrels is watered down because of forestry interests, as the following examples demonstrate.
First, nobody has been punished for logging flying squirrel habitat in the first 10 years of Finnish EU membership. According to studies made by the University of Joensuu, forestry authorities, police, prosecutors and courts are not interested in this forest crime, so illegal logging always benefits the loggers.
Second, the Finnish government has ordered regional environment centres only to protect trees within a 15 m radius of a tree used as a breeding site or resting place. As a result, the size of an average protected site for flying squirrels is now only 0.1–0.5 ha, but according to radio-telemetry studies at the University of Helsinki, this is far too little, as the average area needed for females to succeed in reproduction is 8 ha. It is not necessary to save every tree in this area, but Finnish logging practices certainly need major changes. Environmental NGOs are planning to monitor what has happened to flying squirrel sites after logging, and report to the European Commission
Libby is trying on the old “gimme the evidence” line when she knows perfectly well that any research proposal that fails to support the “party line” has zero chance of gaining funding.
What we do know is that any suitable man made niche in a forest will eventually be occupied. We also know, from samples by Wormington (in a good year) that the actual number of occupied hollows over a broad stretch of SEQ state forest was only 0.129 per hectare. There were similar densities recorded by Smith & Lees, and of these, almost half of the occupied dens were taken by species (like Brushtail and Ringtailed Possums) that are widely reported to use dwellings and sheds in urban and semi-urban landscapes.
More than half of the used dens were occupied by species that are also known to construct their own nests (Dreys) of sticks & leaves etc, or are known to use the constructions of others.
And my response to Libby, and any of the other people who claim that there is “no evidence” that hollow using species are willing to use artificial nest sites, is to challenge them to support funding for research that will find out.
After all, Australia, and Finland no doubt, has millions of hectares of regrowth forest that currently has low numbers of hollow bearing trees. And if the presence of such trees is critical for the very presence of so-called hollow dependent species, then one must conclude;
1. Such animals would be seriously under represented in such forests, and
2. Artificial hollows could play a very important role in enhancing the biodiversity value of these forests.
But the facts are that some of Wormington’s sample sites with the highest numbers of hollow bearing trees had the lowest number of animals. Surprise, surprise, animal density is more likely to be determined by the nutritional value of the vegetation and the incidence of predators.
Furthermore, the sample plots of Smith & Lees were based on existing forestry growth measurement plots, some third of which did not have any hollows. Only the sites with hollow bearing trees were sampled for hollow using species, despite the fact that there was more than sufficient number of plots for an adequate sample. So Qld Dept. Natural Resources had the means to determine exactly what difference in animal density was produced by the presence or otherwise of hollow bearing trees. But they chose not to find out.
And they chose not to find out because the results would not have assisted the core corporate objective of overstating the importance of hollow bearing trees.
There is not the slightest room for doubt that the nutritional needs of forest dwelling species is best met by young, vigorously growing trees, not old decaying ones. So the higher the proportion of non-contributive (hollow bearing trees, HBTs) the lower the proportion of young contributive ones.
A survey of the actual animal density in forest stands without HBTs was the one piece of research that would have properly informed the entire debate. And the entire research/admin community involved with this issue stands condemned for even trying to address the issue without it.
And the fact that they are apparently willing to leave millions of hectares of regrowth forest in an implied non-habitat condition for decades (when some of the species are listed as rare and threatened) leads to one of only two conclusions;
a. They have placed political objective over and above the requirements of threatened species for additional contributive habitat, or
b. The so-called hollow dependent species can still maintain healthy populations on sites where hollows are in reduced supply.
In either case, there has been serious misrepresentation to the policy process by people subject to specific professional duties and legal obligations.
WTF Ian? READ THE COMMENTS. Get yor facts straight for once. Did I make a comment here asking you for evidence? No. However you have managed to provide ample evidence supporting the FACT you do not comprehend what is written, cannot substantiate information with facts when asked, consistently go back to some paranoid line about hidden agendas, alterior motives for funding and green zealots, and choose to blame someone you clearly have issues with for something they didn’t do.
You have been asked in the recent past for evidence from Paul and myself (regarding flying foxes), and now Travis here. Paul did not seem to take too kindly to your comments Ian, and certainly you are walking a thin line with me.
Yes, Libby, it was Travis, not you, who posed the old “gimme the evidence” line. And I take that part of it back. But you then went on to confirm that you support Travis anyway so it is a moot point.
And my views on the hidden agendas of the research community in relation to forest dwelling species is based on 15 years as a national level private forestry representative. This included detailed interraction with the so-called “natural resource management” administrations in four states, ranging from ministerial level through directors general, regional and field staff to associated research people.
And I have been lied to on critical issues of fact, smarmed at, bull$hitted and betrayed at every step of the way. And you may like to call it paranoia but in my “real job” I was paid a great deal of money for my capacity to understand complex situations, to distinguish between fact and fiction, rhetoric and reality, and, above all, the integrity of the people I was dealing with.
And it is my considered opinion, based on these skills, that the earth science and natural resource management millieu has the greatest concentration of sleazy low life this side of Phat Pong Road. And it is particularly the case at the senior executive level.
Meanwhile, back at the topic. Any time you or anyone else wants to resolve any of the issues I raise in respect of hollow using species then all you need to do is support studies that compare populations with and without HBTs, and studies that actually examine what it is that each species desires in a nest, and then examine the FULL RANGE of means to supply them with it.
I also note that Ann’s quote has the common green ploy of implying that only the trees that are prohibited from harvesting constitute “protected habitat”. This is pure bollocks because it assumes that all trees outside the 15m radius,but within the 159m radius of the 8ha home range, are harvested.
The facts are that even if they were, the growth rates of regeneration will mean that contributive
forest is soon returned and will remain, secure but officially “unprotected” for another 60 to 80 years. But in most cases the home range will only partially overlap the harvest area and even then, the harvest is just as likely to be a partial harvest (or thin) rather than a clearfall.
Any implication that the only parts of a forest that wildlife can utilise are the parts that are officially “protected” is extremely false and misleading.
“But you then went on to confirm that you support Travis anyway so it is a moot point.”
Where Ian? What a crock. You misrepresented me and are now continuing to do so. It’s pathetic.
“And I have been lied to on critical issues of fact, smarmed at, bull$hitted and betrayed at every step of the way. And you may like to call it paranoia but in my “real job” I was paid a great deal of money for my capacity to understand complex situations, to distinguish between fact and fiction, rhetoric and reality, and, above all, the integrity of the people I was dealing with.”
That’s life Ian, in any job, get over it. As for your “real job” your “capacity” was obviously seriously overestimated. Now that was a waste of money by some fool. You have proven here your skills at separating fact from fiction, your ability to understand complex issues, honesty, integrity, intelligence and decency. Your previous employer was taken for a ride by a snake oil salesman.
“And it is my considered opinion…”
I think that counts for zip, and there would be evidence to support this fact.
Can we please return to the issue at hand rather than personal abuse.
And it would be good if Ian could reduce the number of general accusations he so often repeats against various government agencies which are often irrelvant to the issue at hand. Furthermore, a request for evidence is a very reasonable request.
Jennifer, it is a fact that the current Director General of Qld Department of Natural Resources, Mr Scott Spencer, refused to provide copies of any internal responses to 16 major issues of contention with the science on the need for Habitat Tree Retention prescriptions in the Code of Practice for Timber harvesting on Freehold Land. I can show you the correspondence if you must.
The NSW Code was implemented without any consultation with forest owners and done in a way that would avoid the statutory obligation to conduct proper regulatory impact assessment.
So the issue of convenient gaps in the research and a very pointed lack of evidence is highly relevant to this discussion.
And for the record, Libby, I had no employer, I had clients. I was the Principal Partner of the firm. But your apparent need for four paras of invective are noted
Ian when you accuse me of doing something I did not I have every right to “four paras of invective.” You have proven you have a personal issue with me, not what I write. You are a blog bully who has threatened and abused many on this weblog and there are laws against such acts. Instead of ignoring Jennifer’s smack on the hand and hurling more abuse from behind her skirts, take it as good advice.
The original point you made here was:
“Indeed, the evidence is very clear that whenever such structures are available, they will be used, often in preference to naturally produced alternatives.”
Your answer, when asked to provide evidence, was to shift the blame elsewhere, make it the responsibility of others, and insinuate there is a conspiracy at play that prevents such studies from being done. It was a cop out.
fuck you you mangy turd. i made it quite fucking clear to your pinball ‘intelligence’, so to speak, that Smith and Less, among others, noticed severe discrepencies between animals choosing natural hollows and those not.
You’re simply a quasi-intellectual who cant stand costantly being proved wrong so you just take roundabout non-sensical defences. fuck you. i hope you die in an office fire. i hope you burn and all your filthy right wing corporate ideas go with you you fucking son of a bitch fuk you
ok first of all that wasnt even me that wrote that. some guy obviously thought it would be funny to pretend to be Ian to stir the pot but he thought Ian was me. unless Ian is pretending to be me which wouldnt make sense. anyway. that wasnt me libby