Why does this make me nervous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7531221.stm

probably visions of Cane Toads in Oz or the Mongoose in Jamaica or Foxes in
Oz.......
I do hope the research is done properly.
--
Regards
Bob Hobden

Bob Hobden wrote:
Why does this make me nervous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7531221.stm

probably visions of Cane Toads in Oz or the Mongoose in Jamaica or Foxes in
Oz.......
I do hope the research is done properly.
My thoughts exactly Bob. What else does it attack, what will keeps is
under control? So many bad examples litter our history!

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Bob Hobden wrote:
Why does this make me nervous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7531221.stm

probably visions of Cane Toads in Oz or the Mongoose in Jamaica or Foxes
in Oz.......
I do hope the research is done properly.
My thoughts exactly Bob. What else does it attack, what will keeps is
under control? So many bad examples litter our history!

The greatest danger to Man is Man. Why should we think that everything
should be geared to our well-being? JK isn't a real threat to us, is it?
Surely it's just an inconvenience - a big one but not fatal.

I could be wrong, it has been known :-)

Mary

Broadback wrote:
Bob Hobden wrote:
Why does this make me nervous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7531221.stm

probably visions of Cane Toads in Oz or the Mongoose in Jamaica or
Foxes in Oz.......
I do hope the research is done properly.
My thoughts exactly Bob. What else does it attack, what will keeps is
under control? So many bad examples litter our history!

But there is at least one success story as well - using the Mexican
cochineal insect to wipe out opuntia in Australia.

It would seem that the failures are due to "unselective" predators being
introduced. Those you have listed are very unselective - their introduction
smacks of desperation without too much forethought! There is a much closer
relationship between insects and plants than between higher animal forms and
plants (eg specific pollinators for orchids).

Having said that, the Australian opuntia problem was much easier to deal
with as there are no native Cactaceae in Australia, and once the food source
was exhausted, that was that - there was nothing else the insect could turn
to. There are, however, a number of native Polygonaceae in the UK, and one
wonders of the Aphalara could turn to those.

--
Jeff
(cut "thetape" to reply)

In article ,
Broadback wrote:
Bob Hobden wrote:
Why does this make me nervous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7531221.stm

probably visions of Cane Toads in Oz or the Mongoose in Jamaica or Foxes in
Oz.......
I do hope the research is done properly.

My thoughts exactly Bob. What else does it attack, what will keeps is
under control? So many bad examples litter our history!

Damn few in the UK. Most of our problems have been caused by the
REMOVAL of species, causing a great gap in our ecology. The UK
and Australia are entirely different - almost all of our ecology
is made up of invaders; 500 years ago, very little of theirs was.
Dammit, even humans and dogs have been in Australia MANY times
longer than 99% (?) of 'native' UK species have been in Britain!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...
Why does this make me nervous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7531221.stm

probably visions of Cane Toads in Oz or the Mongoose in Jamaica or Foxes
in Oz.......
I do hope the research is done properly.

No introduction would be without risk, but at least there has been research,
so that the politicians who will take the decision will have someone to
blame if it goes pear-shaped.

Why did I catch myself humming the tune from "there was an old lady who
swallowed a fly" as I typed this?

Hmmmmmm have they tested it on EVERY UK plant? What happens if it cross breeds(if it can)? Which of the UK's natural predators could it eliminate.

Sorry I too find it worrying. (but great if it was 100% safe)

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...
Why does this make me nervous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7531221.stm

probably visions of Cane Toads in Oz or the Mongoose in Jamaica or Foxes
in Oz.......
I do hope the research is done properly.

Same here, a nervous shudder when I heard it on the news this morning. I
heard no mention of them developing a control for the beasties they hope to
release.

--
Chris.
Mater tua criceta fuit, et pater tuo redoluit bacarum sambucus.

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...
Why does this make me nervous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7531221.stm

probably visions of Cane Toads in Oz or the Mongoose in Jamaica or Foxes
in Oz.......
I do hope the research is done properly.
--
Regards
Bob Hobden


While cleaning my teeth this morning I pondered this question for the two
minutes my sonic brush allows me, for no good reason I could think of except
that I was looking out at the back garden.

I reckon that there are more 'safe' biological controls than there are
undesirable ones.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote after
"Bob Hobden" wrote ...
Why does this make me nervous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7531221.stm

probably visions of Cane Toads in Oz or the Mongoose in Jamaica or Foxes
in Oz.......
I do hope the research is done properly.

While cleaning my teeth this morning I pondered this question for the two
minutes my sonic brush allows me, for no good reason I could think of
except that I was looking out at the back garden.

I reckon that there are more 'safe' biological controls than there are
undesirable ones.

Over all of history I'm not so sure, although that's probably down to
stupidity and/or desperation coupled with a lack of understanding/research.
I understood most of the "safe" ones use native insects/fungi/bacteria not
imported ones.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden

Nick wrote after Broadback wrote in reply to
Bob Hobden wrote:
Why does this make me nervous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7531221.stm

probably visions of Cane Toads in Oz or the Mongoose in Jamaica or Foxes
in
Oz.......
I do hope the research is done properly.

My thoughts exactly Bob. What else does it attack, what will keeps is
under control? So many bad examples litter our history!

Damn few in the UK. Most of our problems have been caused by the
REMOVAL of species, causing a great gap in our ecology. The UK
and Australia are entirely different - almost all of our ecology
is made up of invaders; 500 years ago, very little of theirs was.
Dammit, even humans and dogs have been in Australia MANY times
longer than 99% (?) of 'native' UK species have been in Britain!


Totally agree, but those are examples of disastrous introductions which we
can't afford to emulate.

I can think of a few places here where a large pack of wolves, a few bears,
or maybe a lion pride would have a very sobering effect on the youf!! :-)

Mind you a few Lynx near our allotment site would do for the rabbits nicely.
Rabbits, wasn't it the Romans that introduced them?
--
Regards
Bob Hobden

In article ,
Bob Hobden wrote:

I can think of a few places here where a large pack of wolves, a few bears,
or maybe a lion pride would have a very sobering effect on the youf!! :-)

Wimps.

Mind you a few Lynx near our allotment site would do for the rabbits nicely.
Rabbits, wasn't it the Romans that introduced them?

Yes.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote after
"Bob Hobden" wrote ...
Why does this make me nervous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7531221.stm

probably visions of Cane Toads in Oz or the Mongoose in Jamaica or Foxes
in Oz.......
I do hope the research is done properly.

While cleaning my teeth this morning I pondered this question for the two
minutes my sonic brush allows me, for no good reason I could think of
except that I was looking out at the back garden.

I reckon that there are more 'safe' biological controls than there are
undesirable ones.

Over all of history I'm not so sure, although that's probably down to
stupidity and/or desperation coupled with a lack of
understanding/research.

This one *is* being researched.

I'm not worried about JK but if you are no doubt you'd welcome a solution
:-) I'm reminded of people who complain about supermarkets closing down
corner shops but buy their weekly rations from - I can't bring myself to
type the name.

I understood most of the "safe" ones use native insects/fungi/bacteria not
imported ones.

'Understand'?

I was talking to Spouse over dinner tonight - a delicious huss-en-croute
with salads and, of course, runner beans.

Earlier today I Googled for Arctic Tern. There were so many facts and
figures and different in all of the sites that one doesn't know what to
'understand'.
For instance, it was said that the AT can live for as long as 32 years. In
another it was said that no bird has been recorded which lived more than 21
years.

Twenty one years for a little bird which spends little time on land, which
migrates from within 600 miles of the north pole to the Antarctic, is a
great age, I'd have thought. But no doubt there will be some who have read
the first 'authority' I quoted and declare that they 'understood' that the
AT can live for 32 years. I tend to believe the findings of the Norwegian
researchers on Svalbard - but what do I know? Just because I've been there,
seen the birds and the researchers is irrelevant. It really is.

I'm not criticising you, Bob, I'm just confused about the plethora of
'authoritative information' there is about and how many of us can be misled.

[pronounced 'mizzled' in our house :-) ]

Mary

The message
from "Bob Hobden" contains these words:

Mind you a few Lynx near our allotment site would do for the rabbits
nicely.
Rabbits, wasn't it the Romans that introduced them?

"Ah, vir optime, obviamis cuniculus."

--
Robiginosus
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Earlier today I Googled for Arctic Tern. There were so many facts and
figures and different in all of the sites that one doesn't know what to
'understand'.
For instance, it was said that the AT can live for as long as 32 years. In
another it was said that no bird has been recorded which lived more than 21
years.

Well, you can discount that last figure. Think parrot.

Twenty one years for a little bird which spends little time on land, which
migrates from within 600 miles of the north pole to the Antarctic, is a
great age, I'd have thought. But no doubt there will be some who have read
the first 'authority' I quoted and declare that they 'understood' that the
AT can live for 32 years. I tend to believe the findings of the Norwegian
researchers on Svalbard - but what do I know? Just because I've been there,
seen the birds and the researchers is irrelevant. It really is.

I'm not criticising you, Bob, I'm just confused about the plethora of
'authoritative information' there is about and how many of us can be misled.

Ah yes. Must be true, I read it on the Internet/in the newspaper...

[pronounced 'mizzled' in our house :-) ]

And in several others I could mention.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig