"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

But in this particular case the squirrels are here because man
interfered by introducing them in the first place.


And the "balance" you mention can only happen at the expense
of our native red squirrel. Is it a "balance" to gain one
introduced species at the expense of another indigenous one?
Is it a "balance" when mink supplant water voles on our
rivers?

snippage



If man, and man alone, is the primary cause of all these
imbalances - which he indeed is - then if they really exercise
you that much, then the answer seems pretty obvious. Get
rid of man. Because "interfering" with nature in various ways,
is part of man's self elected role on the Earth, and always
has been.

Which in itself doesn't justify meeting out wanton cruelty to
defenceless creatures which are capable of feeling pain,
but that's another matter.

I suggest you console yourself with the fact that life
forms of one form or another, all the way up from trilobites
through woodlouse and silver fish equivalents, all the way
up to cats and squirrels and chimpanzees co-existed
quite happily for 350 million years, prior to man's arrival
on the scene. And his brief 250,000 year tenure on the
earth as homo sapiens, let alone his 20,000 year(?) long,
totally unsuccessful campaign to fully mould nature to his
will. And will doubtless take up where they left off, once
humans depart the scene. Be it from totally resistant viruses
such as a highly contagious strain of influenza; climatic castrophes
brought about by global warming, volcanic activity or meteor
strikes; nuclear or biological warfare; nuclear accidents,
chronic water shortages, or more simply a surfeit of
MacDonalds hamburgers. The demise of the red squirrel
in the UK should be the least of mankind's worries IMO.
The likes of cockroaches, slugs, fungi, and bacteria
are going to win in the end, whatever we do.


michael adams






--
Malcolm