Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Kay" wrote in message ... In article , BAC writes "Kay" wrote in message ... In article , Franz Heymann notfranz. writes 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 Well, out of that lot, nos 1, 5 and 6 could be regarded as putting things right after introduction of species to places where they don't belong, What do you mean by 'places where they don't belong'? They didn't get there without human intervention. Pretty obviously, they are well suited to those places, I can think of many places where I would thrive, but where I don't belong ;-) and 5 and 6 are not primarily 'for the sake of humans or domesticated animals' - indeed, it was the *introduction* of hedgehogs that was 'for the sake of humans'. The extermination of the hedgehogs is for the sake of humans, too. It is for the sake of those humans who consider the continued presence on the islands of large breeding populations of certain species of birds to be important, and who believe that management of the hedgehog population is therefore a necessary expedient. If the presence of the hedgehogs merely threatened the survival on the islands of something to which humans assigned little importance (like the slugs they were reputedly imported to control), I doubt whether the RSPB or the local tourist industry would have lobbied SNH for their removal. OK, a fair point. And no 2 is an interesting one ... where do we draw the line .. how do we regard viruses, compared with plants, animals, fungi, bacteria .... I suggest that similar principles apply - if a virus or any other organism is perceived as a threat/nuisance, countermeasures are likely to be taken up to the point where the cost/effort/hassle involved starts to outweigh the anticipated benefits. That leaves questions about what are the benefits. Will removal of one species (whatever it is) have a knock on effect on others? You have a point. I mentioned the use of Cactoblastis cactorum to clear the prickly pears out of the Little Karoo. After the job was done, there were rumours floating around that the insect had started turning its atention to pumpkin fields. I don't know whether that threat ever materialised. Is it good to maintain as large a number of species as possible for its own sake? ... Yes, if you would substitute something else for "possible", such as "feasible without harming the human population" or for potential future uses we don't yet know about? And how much importance should we place on the furry cuddly factor? Very many mammalian species do in fact play an important role in the psychological well-being of humans. Franz |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Franz Heymann
writes You have a point. I mentioned the use of Cactoblastis cactorum to clear the prickly pears out of the Little Karoo. After the job was done, there were rumours floating around that the insect had started turning its atention to pumpkin fields. I don't know whether that threat ever materialised. There was the whole rabbit/opuntia thing in Oz - I can't remember whether the rabbits were introduced control the opuntias or vice versa, but either way it didn't afterwards look to be such a good idea. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Kay" wrote in message ... In article , Franz Heymann writes You have a point. I mentioned the use of Cactoblastis cactorum to clear the prickly pears out of the Little Karoo. After the job was done, there were rumours floating around that the insect had started turning its atention to pumpkin fields. I don't know whether that threat ever materialised. There was the whole rabbit/opuntia thing in Oz - I can't remember whether the rabbits were introduced control the opuntias or vice versa, but either way it didn't afterwards look to be such a good idea. I don't think the rabbits were imported to deal with the opuntias. My memory says that they were released in the wild in the hope that they would provide a future source for sport. The Ozzies also dealt with their opuntias by using the anti-cactus bug. Franz |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Kay" wrote in message ... In article , Franz Heymann writes You have a point. I mentioned the use of Cactoblastis cactorum to clear the prickly pears out of the Little Karoo. After the job was done, there were rumours floating around that the insect had started turning its atention to pumpkin fields. I don't know whether that threat ever materialised. There was the whole rabbit/opuntia thing in Oz - I can't remember whether the rabbits were introduced control the opuntias or vice versa, but either way it didn't afterwards look to be such a good idea. I don't think the rabbits were imported to deal with the opuntias. My memory says that they were released in the wild in the hope that they would provide a future source for sport. The Ozzies also dealt with their opuntias by using the anti-cactus bug. If you're looking for a classic example of an attempted biological control going wrong in Oz, the good old Cane Toad springs to mind - it didn't solve the problem it was hoped it would, and has spread widely, preying on virtually anything it can fit in its mouth. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Kay" wrote in message ... In article , Franz Heymann writes You have a point. I mentioned the use of Cactoblastis cactorum to clear the prickly pears out of the Little Karoo. After the job was done, there were rumours floating around that the insect had started turning its atention to pumpkin fields. I don't know whether that threat ever materialised. There was the whole rabbit/opuntia thing in Oz - I can't remember whether the rabbits were introduced control the opuntias or vice versa, but either way it didn't afterwards look to be such a good idea. Rabbits were introduced as food for foxes. And the foxes were introduced so people could hunt them. -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
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 |