Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Janet Baraclough.. writes: | The message | from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words: | | Oh, sod it, this doesn't make sense | | You tell them, Nick. Sometimes it's just a bustard. Yeah, right. And the latest attempt with them isn't going to work any better than the previous one did. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Rainy, grey, grey, sun, grey, rainy etc. | United Kingdom | |||
What to do with grey squirrels - M Ogilvie pro hunt nut and extremist, adviser for SNH suggests we should eat squirrels! | United Kingdom | |||
Can grey squirrels count!? | United Kingdom | |||
Can Grey Squirrels Count? | United Kingdom | |||
Grey squirrels to be culled to protect native red species | United Kingdom |