"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| The only thing which is unnatural about the grey squirrel in the UK
is
that
| the species does not comply with the definition of 'native'
currently
| considered correct by the majority of conservationists.

I wasn't aware that there WAS one! What is it? Which deer count,
and why? Do rabbits count? What about the Orkney vole? And both
rats?


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'.



Non-native is not bad.
Bad is bad.
Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or poisoning the
kids.



I agree that being non-native should not, in itself, be presumed to be bad.
What bad means in a particular context, of course, is a matter of opinion.
Plants or animals which are potentially harmful can require careful
management, certainly.