In article , Des Higgins
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Des Higgins
writes


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


So how do you categorise harming a 'bad' species?


Sorry? Crossed wires here?
I do not get the question.
All I was saying was that a species is not bad just because it is not native
(and hence was agreeing with most other posters here).
I then tried to say that some species, nonetheless are a problem. This is
most easily seen in conservation terms.
One very clear and simple case is Rhodendron ponticum which is a pretty
species Rhododendron that also
devastates Irish (and Scottish?) Oakwoods.

But you were putting it in very simplistic terms.
And you said a species which made a mess of another species was bad.
But what if the species being made a mess of is itself bad?
Is it then good to make a mess of it? Or is it still bad?
Just a question.

And leading up to my next question (which you didn't answer ;-) )

Humans make a mess of more species than most. So by your definition they
are bad.

In conservation terms, yes; clearly, the worst there is.
In other terms, some of my best friends are human.

What then is so bad about poisoning the kids? (assuming you
mean human kids and not young goats).

I'm just asking the question, not saying one way or another.

You sure :-)?


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"