|
Grey Squirrels:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:00:33 +0100, Derek Moody
wrote: Grey Squirrels: Squirrels have successfully colonised much of the United Kingdom, since their importation from North America in the late 1800s. There is an estimated adult grey squirrel population of 2.5 million in snip I say shoot the lot. Grey squirrels are a damned menace especially when they get into your roof. The are just vermin. Myths & Facts Online A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict By Mitchell G. Bard http://tinyurl.com/ysepr +------------------------+ | NO PLONKING ZONE | +------------------------+ | | | | | | | ..| |.. .| |.. ...\| |/.... \| |/.. ********************************************** 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.217% richest people in the world. There are 5,986,950,449 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 13,049,551 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ Newsgroup ettiquette 1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you. 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond. 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself. 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining they're having no effect. 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know how to avoid them. 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored. 7) Eat vast quantities of pies. 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades. 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while secretly reading it. 10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're as bent as a roundabout. 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet 12) Die of old age 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you will have a penis the girls can see. --------------------------------------- "If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them" "Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded" The Big Yin. Need a fake diploma for fun? contact my collegues Malcolm Ogilvie or Michael Saunby who both bought one and got one free, only $15 each, have as many as you like www.fakediplomas.com John In limine sapientiae |
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:53:08 +0100, Nick Maclaren
wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:25:34 +0100, Oz wrote: Ray writes I like the use of the word "Control" For control read "KILL" Yup, that's natures way wherever possible. What does the senseless bullying and exploitation of wildlife by a minority of perverts for deviant pleasure have to do with nature? What is natural about the grey squirrel in the U.K? John In limine sapientiae |
In article , John Edgar writes: | | What is natural about the grey squirrel in the U.K? They aren't as unnatural as trolls! Note that I did not post the abuse, so here is a serious answer to your reasonable question. There are at most two mammals that are native to the British Isles over a 10,000 year timescale (the fox and blue hare), and a very high proportion of the others have been introduced by man (deliberately or accidentally). The British Isles have an extremely unnatural ecology. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
"John Edgar" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:53:08 +0100, Nick Maclaren wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:25:34 +0100, Oz wrote: Ray writes I like the use of the word "Control" For control read "KILL" Yup, that's natures way wherever possible. What does the senseless bullying and exploitation of wildlife by a minority of perverts for deviant pleasure have to do with nature? What is natural about the grey squirrel in the U.K? 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. |
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? Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
"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'. |
"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. |
In article , "BAC" writes: | | 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'. Well, there is, somewhat. I agree that the above is the traditional view, but it got rather badly dented as people discovered that many 'native' species weren't, and the complexity of the situation in the UK. The evidence in favour of many species, such as roe deer, is mixed, too. Plus the problems with most species, especially non-woodland ones, being native to only some parts of the country because they have been spread by man's actions. And, of course, reintroductions. That is why I am not aware that there is a "definition of 'native' currently considered correct by the majority of conservationists." I think that you will find that there is less of a consensus than that. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
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? Humans make a mess of more species than most. So by your definition they are bad. 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. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , "BAC" writes: | | 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'. Well, there is, somewhat. I agree that the above is the traditional view, but it got rather badly dented as people discovered that many 'native' species weren't, and the complexity of the situation in the UK. The evidence in favour of many species, such as roe deer, is mixed, too. Plus the problems with most species, especially non-woodland ones, being native to only some parts of the country because they have been spread by man's actions. And, of course, reintroductions. That is why I am not aware that there is a "definition of 'native' currently considered correct by the majority of conservationists." I think that you will find that there is less of a consensus than that. Granted, there has been recognition of the fact that application of the 'traditional' definition to a dynamic system has its difficulties, but, as far as I am aware, it still lies at the root of opinions as to whether or not to classify a species as 'native' to the UK. There are people who seek to further refine the definition to consideration of 'nativeness' to specific locations within the UK (e.g. Scots pine perhaps being non-native in Wales, hedgehogs being non-native in the Uists, etc), and there are those who subclassify some species which do not meet the 'native' criteria into 'naturalised', and maybe 'reintroduced', but, at the heart of it, the basic criteria for qualification as 'native' for the chosen location, remains the same, I believe. I may be mistaken in that opinion, of course, in which case there must, presumably, be radically different definitions of 'native' in vogue? |
"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. |
In article , "BAC" writes: | | I may be mistaken in that opinion, of course, in which case there must, | presumably, be radically different definitions of 'native' in vogue? 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 Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
"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. |
"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. 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" |
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , "BAC" writes: | | I may be mistaken in that opinion, of course, in which case there must, | presumably, be radically different definitions of 'native' in vogue? 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. |
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" |
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. |
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 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. |
"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 |
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" |
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" |
"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 |
"Kay" wrote in message ... 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 , "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. |
In article , BAC
writes "Kay" wrote in message ... 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" |
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" |
"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 |
"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 |
"Kay" wrote in message ... snip 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? Sounds like a good idea to me*. I'm presuming for example, that if you had lice you wouldn't leave them on your body, even though that is 'good for you' and 'bad for lice'? Or that if slugs were eating your food, you wouldn't either kill the ones eating your food or restrict their access to your food (both the same thing in the long run). [the third possibility, to relocate them, would damage some other species food supply of course, not to mention the plants themselves] Or is the earth something that should be preserved even if it means curing our instincts to dominate? The earth cant be "preserved". But even if it could, then that would be gross interference in itself, if for example you 'preserved' every species that was going extinct, even if that extinction was nothing to do with us. That would definitely be a bad thing, from the POV of letting nature operate unhindered by us. 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. *Well that should obviously be taken into account when deciding what to do with our habitat as per the first point. But eradicating, for example the malaria parasite ,I'm betting you'd regard as a good thing even though its a 'very bad thing' for the malaria parasite. So really, all you would disagree with, is in what degree and way you'd interfere, rather than setting yourself up as some special case who doesn't change the planet and everyone else who does is evil. -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
|
|
"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'? Pretty obviously, they are well suited to those places, or they wouldn't be thriving to the extent they are thought to be interfering with some humans' preferences for those places. Mind you, much conservation seems to be about trying to control organisms which are successful to preserve and encourage less successful organisms which we prefer, a concept with which all gardeners will be familiar. 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. 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. |
"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, 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'. And no 2 is an interesting one ... where do we draw the line .. how do we regard viruses, compared with plants, animals, fungi, bacteria .... That's a good question. I tnd to tink of anything which replicates itself as being in some sense alive, but that may well be wrong. Franz |
In article , "Franz Heymann" writes: | | That's a good question. I tnd to tink of anything which replicates | itself as being in some sense alive, but that may well be wrong. Prions. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
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? Is it good to maintain as large a number of species as possible for its own sake? .. or for potential future uses we don't yet know about? And how much importance should we place on the furry cuddly factor? -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
In article , Franz Heymann
writes "Kay" wrote in message ... And no 2 is an interesting one ... where do we draw the line .. how do we regard viruses, compared with plants, animals, fungi, bacteria ... That's a good question. I tnd to tink of anything which replicates itself as being in some sense alive, but that may well be wrong. Computer worm? -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
In article , Kay writes: | | What do you mean by 'places where they don't belong'? | | They didn't get there without human intervention. Grrk. That accounts for most of our ecologies, including such ones as chalk downland. The UK has very few ecologies that are even semi-natural. | 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 ;-) I can think of a few, too :-) Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter