Grey squirrels do not actively chase or attack reds. That claim is widely repeated but not supported by behavioural evidence. When both species live together, the issue is indirect competition: greys are more efficient at locating and digesting certain foods (particularly acorns), which can leave reds nutritionally disadvantaged, especially in poor years.2

Squirrelpox virus (SQPV) is often cited as the primary reason reds decline. While the virus is typically benign in greys, it can be fatal in reds. However, research has shown that some red squirrels have developed antibodies and survive infection, suggesting emerging immunity.3

Squirrelpox has certainly accelerated declines in some regions, but the long-term, fundamental reasons for red decline are habitat loss, poor forest structure, and the absence of large, connected conifer woodland. Focusing almost exclusively on greys has allowed people to ignore the crucial role of humans in destroying red habitat.4

Decades of expensive culling programmes have produced little measurable benefit to red-squirrel recovery at national scale. The funds spent on lethal control could be redirected towards vaccination research, habitat improvement, disease monitoring, and humane, science-based conservation approaches.5

As one scientific review puts it: “It is widely argued that controlling grey squirrel numbers is the best way of conserving red squirrels. However, there is little evidence to support this belief.”6

Public opinion also contradicts the anti-grey narrative. In a Mammal Society survey, 45% of respondents liked grey squirrels, compared to 24% who disliked them — despite decades of negative messaging about greys.7 This positive view has been eroded by the constant propaganda pushed by some red-squirrel organisations seeking public support for widespread killing of grey squirrels.