In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Conventionally, species are regarded as 'native' to the UK if they arrived
| here since the last ice age without human intervention or assistance. Red
| deer and roe deer are generally regarded as native, because evidence
| suggests they (and reindeer) were living on parts of the land destined to
| become the UK before the channel was formed. Other species like sika and
| muntjack were introduced. Rabbits are generally understood to have been
| introduced by humans, for the pot, so, strictly speaking, are regarded as
| non-native. As are both brown and black rats, which hitched a lift around
| the world from humans. The orkney vole is thought to have been taken to the
| orkneys by neolithic human settlers, so it's probably 'non-native', too.
| Many naturalised species such as chestnuts and holm oak are 'non-native', as
| well.
|
| There's nothing wrong with people classifying species as native or
| non-native if they feel the need, of course, as long as that is not allowed
| to grow into a dogma to the effect non-native is synonymous with 'bad'.

Well, there is, somewhat. I agree that the above is the traditional
view, but it got rather badly dented as people discovered that many
'native' species weren't, and the complexity of the situation in the
UK. The evidence in favour of many species, such as roe deer, is
mixed, too. Plus the problems with most species, especially
non-woodland ones, being native to only some parts of the country
because they have been spread by man's actions. And, of course,
reintroductions.

That is why I am not aware that there is a "definition of 'native'
currently considered correct by the majority of conservationists."
I think that you will find that there is less of a consensus than
that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.