"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.

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"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.



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). 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.

With mammals, the cute and cuddly bit causes an extra complication. That is
an emotive issue rather than a
conservation one. If rats are competing with native species then I do not
have a problem with killing them.
Others do.

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"

"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'.

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"

"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.

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"