Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16   Report Post  
Old 24-08-2004, 06:12 PM
Kay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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"

  #18   Report Post  
Old 24-08-2004, 06:21 PM
Kay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Des Higgins
writes

"BAC" wrote in message
...

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.



The extremes are easy.
Take plants. In Ireland many species are not native but live happily in
parks and gardens or the wild.
One or two are a real pest though. These include Rhodendron ponticum (wipes
out native oakforest),
Reynoutria x (cannot remember species or even correct spelling); Heracleum
mantegazzianum (looks cool
but blisters skin and is invasive; can elbow out native species).


There I'd disagree. If it can elbow out native species, I'd regard that
as an argument for control. But not that it blisters skin. I think it is
for us to learn how to live around things, not to try to exterminate
things that might cause us harm.

These are
pests and I am quite happy to
get support getting rid of them. This is reasonabley clear cut. At the
other extreme are things like cornfield
weeds, some of which are very pretty and many of which are now very scarce.
These used to be pests and are probably not native (some may be) but it
is sad to seem them go. You also get everything inbtween.


What about dandelions and nettles? Both of these seem to be getting more
abundant. Are they native?
Plantlife or some similar body does a regular survey which suggests that
things like dandelions and nettles are becoming more abundant at the
expense of the flowers (ladys bedstraw, birds foot trefoil etc) that I
remember as being abundant in my youth. I don't know that I'd consider
nettle as being a typical upland limestone plant, but a hell of a lot of
Yorkshire dales cave entrances are stuffed with them!
I'm not claiming any expertise here, just pondering aloud.

Otoh I read a report last week (Guardian? New Scientist?) of a study of
the effect of the Panama Canal allowing species to leak from atlantic to
Pacific and vice versa - the conclusion was that both sides showed an
increase in species richness, and there was no evidence that species on
either side had suffered as a result of the alien invasion. At least,
that was how the research was reported.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

  #19   Report Post  
Old 24-08-2004, 08:52 PM
BAC
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

"BAC" wrote in message
...

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.



The extremes are easy.
Take plants. In Ireland many species are not native but live happily in
parks and gardens or the wild.
One or two are a real pest though. These include Rhodendron ponticum

(wipes
out native oakforest),
Reynoutria x (cannot remember species or even correct spelling);

Heracleum
mantegazzianum (looks cool
but blisters skin and is invasive; can elbow out native species).


There I'd disagree. If it can elbow out native species, I'd regard that
as an argument for control. But not that it blisters skin. I think it is
for us to learn how to live around things, not to try to exterminate
things that might cause us harm.

These are
pests and I am quite happy to
get support getting rid of them. This is reasonabley clear cut. At the
other extreme are things like cornfield
weeds, some of which are very pretty and many of which are now very

scarce.
These used to be pests and are probably not native (some may be) but it
is sad to seem them go. You also get everything inbtween.


What about dandelions and nettles? Both of these seem to be getting more
abundant. Are they native?
Plantlife or some similar body does a regular survey which suggests that
things like dandelions and nettles are becoming more abundant at the
expense of the flowers (ladys bedstraw, birds foot trefoil etc) that I
remember as being abundant in my youth. I don't know that I'd consider
nettle as being a typical upland limestone plant, but a hell of a lot of
Yorkshire dales cave entrances are stuffed with them!
I'm not claiming any expertise here, just pondering aloud.

Otoh I read a report last week (Guardian? New Scientist?) of a study of
the effect of the Panama Canal allowing species to leak from atlantic to
Pacific and vice versa - the conclusion was that both sides showed an
increase in species richness, and there was no evidence that species on
either side had suffered as a result of the alien invasion. At least,
that was how the research was reported.


If you have not already read it, you might find
www.ben-network.org.uk/pdf/Vol4_5.pdf interesting, at least the first
section 'wildlife'.


  #20   Report Post  
Old 24-08-2004, 09:50 PM
Nick Maclaren
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
BAC wrote:

I have seen all of the following:

Established for most of a millennium (includes rabbits)
Established since history (i.e. before the Roman invasion)
No definite proof of human involvement
Not deliberately introduced (includes rats etc.)
Including reintroductions (e.g. capercaillie)
Oh, sod it, this doesn't make sense


Personally, I agree with the latter one.


I agree. Having taken another glance at a History of British Mammals,
a good half of our wild species of mammal are not fully native
according to the strictest interpretation. Even the red squirrel is
not, in most of its current range, because it died out in Scotland
and was reintroduced. The same applies to red and roe deer.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


  #21   Report Post  
Old 24-08-2004, 10:14 PM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or

poisoning the
kids.


That is an untenable generalisation. South Africa imported, from
Australia, the insect Cactoblastus cactorum in order to destroy large
areas of prickly pear in the Little Karoo, thereby making hundreds of
thousands of acres available for grazing land.

Franz


  #22   Report Post  
Old 24-08-2004, 11:30 PM
Kay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , BAC
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...

If you have not already read it, you might find
www.ben-network.org.uk/pdf/Vol4_5.pdf interesting, at least the first
section 'wildlife'.

Both parts were interesting - the second, on people and parks was
interesting to me as one of a group of people managing a town centre
nature park. And I suppose my initial reaction is that we are managing
it first for the wildlife rather than for the people, and I don't see
anything wrong in that. The fact of the wildlife is what gives its
importance to local people - they have several parks where they can play
football or walk dogs, but only the one where they can see a kingfisher.


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

  #23   Report Post  
Old 24-08-2004, 11:33 PM
Kay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or

poisoning the
kids.


That is an untenable generalisation. South Africa imported, from
Australia, the insect Cactoblastus cactorum in order to destroy large
areas of prickly pear in the Little Karoo, thereby making hundreds of
thousands of acres available for grazing land.


So what are you saying here, Franz - I don't quite understand your gist.
SA imported and alien to destroy another alien to create grazing land,
which may or may not be the natural vegetation for the area ..

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

  #24   Report Post  
Old 25-08-2004, 08:30 AM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or

poisoning the
kids.


That is an untenable generalisation. South Africa imported, from
Australia, the insect Cactoblastus cactorum in order to destroy

large
areas of prickly pear in the Little Karoo, thereby making hundreds

of
thousands of acres available for grazing land.


So what are you saying here, Franz - I don't quite understand your

gist.
SA imported and alien to destroy another alien to create grazing

land,
which may or may not be the natural vegetation for the area .


I was under the impression that the prickly pears were indigenous.
Perhaps I am wrong about that.
If so, my point becomes rather weak.
On your final point: I have no objection to humans cultivating useful
plants, indigenous or otherwise.

Franz


  #25   Report Post  
Old 25-08-2004, 10:17 AM
BAC
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kay" wrote in message
news
In article , BAC
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...

If you have not already read it, you might find
www.ben-network.org.uk/pdf/Vol4_5.pdf interesting, at least the first
section 'wildlife'.

Both parts were interesting - the second, on people and parks was
interesting to me as one of a group of people managing a town centre
nature park. And I suppose my initial reaction is that we are managing
it first for the wildlife rather than for the people, and I don't see
anything wrong in that. The fact of the wildlife is what gives its
importance to local people - they have several parks where they can play
football or walk dogs, but only the one where they can see a kingfisher.



From what you say, you seem to be running it for people who wish to
see/experience an extended range of wildlife in the area, and there's
nothing wrong with that, either, IMO.




  #26   Report Post  
Old 25-08-2004, 10:42 AM
Nick Maclaren
 
Posts: n/a
Default


In article ,
"Franz Heymann" writes:
|
| On your final point: I have no objection to humans cultivating useful
| plants, indigenous or otherwise.

Very liberal of you :-)

Cannabis sativa here, Papaver somniferum in Afghanistan, Erythroxylon
coca in south America, ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #27   Report Post  
Old 25-08-2004, 02:39 PM
Kay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , BAC
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
news

Both parts were interesting - the second, on people and parks was
interesting to me as one of a group of people managing a town centre
nature park. And I suppose my initial reaction is that we are managing
it first for the wildlife rather than for the people, and I don't see
anything wrong in that. The fact of the wildlife is what gives its
importance to local people - they have several parks where they can play
football or walk dogs, but only the one where they can see a kingfisher.



From what you say, you seem to be running it for people who wish to
see/experience an extended range of wildlife in the area,


I don't think the people are topmost in our minds ;-)

I agree that is the group of people who benefit.

and there's
nothing wrong with that, either, IMO.



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

  #28   Report Post  
Old 25-08-2004, 02:39 PM
Kay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or
poisoning the
kids.

That is an untenable generalisation. South Africa imported, from
Australia, the insect Cactoblastus cactorum in order to destroy

large
areas of prickly pear in the Little Karoo, thereby making hundreds

of
thousands of acres available for grazing land.


So what are you saying here, Franz - I don't quite understand your

gist.
SA imported and alien to destroy another alien to create grazing

land,
which may or may not be the natural vegetation for the area .


I was under the impression that the prickly pears were indigenous.
Perhaps I am wrong about that.


No - American (N&S) but have become widely naturalised, particularly in
Europe, S Africa and Australia.

If so, my point becomes rather weak.
On your final point: I have no objection to humans cultivating useful
plants, indigenous or otherwise.

So what you were saying was 'if a native species is wiped out for the
sake of useful plants, that is Good'?

Useful to whom?

Should we regard the earth as our habitat, and whatever we do to make it
better for us is therefore good, even if it is bad for other species?

Or is the earth something that should be preserved even if it means
curing our instincts to dominate?

And neither of those questions is relevant to global warming etc because
if we mess up the earth it will mess us up too. So whether our motives
are to look after it for its own sake or to further our success as a
species, it's still a sensible thing to do.

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

  #29   Report Post  
Old 25-08-2004, 10:44 PM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Franz Heymann" writes:
|
| On your final point: I have no objection to humans cultivating

useful
| plants, indigenous or otherwise.

Very liberal of you :-)

Cannabis sativa here, Papaver somniferum in Afghanistan,

Erythroxylon
coca in south America, ....


And why not, if that is what folk want?
The stupidity is that the products are illegal. That is why there is
such a vast empire of crime associated with the industry.

Franz



  #30   Report Post  
Old 25-08-2004, 11:36 PM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or
poisoning the
kids.

That is an untenable generalisation. South Africa imported,

from
Australia, the insect Cactoblastus cactorum in order to destroy

large
areas of prickly pear in the Little Karoo, thereby making

hundreds
of
thousands of acres available for grazing land.


So what are you saying here, Franz - I don't quite understand

your
gist.
SA imported and alien to destroy another alien to create grazing

land,
which may or may not be the natural vegetation for the area .


I was under the impression that the prickly pears were indigenous.
Perhaps I am wrong about that.


No - American (N&S) but have become widely naturalised, particularly

in
Europe, S Africa and Australia.

If so, my point becomes rather weak.
On your final point: I have no objection to humans cultivating

useful
plants, indigenous or otherwise.

So what you were saying was 'if a native species is wiped out for

the
sake of useful plants, that is Good'?

Useful to whom?

Should we regard the earth as our habitat, and whatever we do to

make it
better for us is therefore good, even if it is bad for other

species?

It would be unwise for a pragmatist like me to say yes or no to such a
possible false generalisation.
There are circumstances where I would be prepared to participate in
the eradication of some species in certain places for the sake of
humans, or domesticated animals, for example

Prickly pears for the sake of grazing field
The common cold virus
Malaria-carrying mosquitoes
Bracken in the Lake District
Hedgehogs in N Uist and Benbecula
Cats on Marion Island


Or is the earth something that should be preserved even if it means
curing our instincts to dominate?


When the chips are don, human beings come first as far as I am
concerned.
This does *not* mean that I condone *wanton* destruction of other
species.


And neither of those questions is relevant to global warming etc

because
if we mess up the earth it will mess us up too. So whether our

motives
are to look after it for its own sake or to further our success as a
species, it's still a sensible thing to do.


Yes.

Franz


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rainy, grey, grey, sun, grey, rainy etc. Sacha[_3_] United Kingdom 12 03-06-2008 08:52 PM
What to do with grey squirrels - M Ogilvie pro hunt nut and extremist, adviser for SNH suggests we should eat squirrels! [email protected] United Kingdom 15 19-10-2007 02:34 AM
Can grey squirrels count!? Little Debbie United Kingdom 11 12-10-2004 09:06 PM
Can Grey Squirrels Count? Pam Moore United Kingdom 7 06-10-2004 10:48 PM
Grey squirrels to be culled to protect native red species Dr RubikZ. Phd United Kingdom 0 15-05-2004 10:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017