[fugl]

Originally Posted by Steve Dudley

Colonise is not the right term here. Species naturally extending their range and reaching Britain, e.g. Little Egret in recent years, have colonised. Non-native species sometimes 'establish' themselves once escaped/released.

I've heard that now Mandarin has reached Scotland it is competing with Goldeneye for nest sites. It may even compete with other hole-nesting species, I dont know.

Surely, a distinction without a difference. What's the difference in terms of potential ecological impact between a species which colonizes new territory after being accidentally or deliberately introduced by man & one that does so as a result of "natural" expansion?

[Steve Dudley]

Originally Posted by fugl

Surely, a distinction without a difference. What's the difference in terms of potential ecological impact between a species which colonizes new territory after being accidentally or deliberately introduced by man & one that does so as a result of "natural" expansion?

A good point. I think in order to colonise the species involved probably needs to move from its original release/escape population. So in this respect, an introduced species moving in to a completely new area would be deemed a colonist I suppose. I wouldn't include this for species moving with the Britain, I would treat this as part of its ongoing establishment and naturalisation of our Britain. But I would use it for Sacred Ibis when it makes it here from France as we have done for other species, e.g. Little Egret, that have made the jump across the Channel.

[Espen]

sorry, i often get words wrong

i didn't know about madarins threatning goldeneyes oh well i guess we will have to say goodbye to the mandarin
however i do know about the whole ruddy, white head thingy, they realy do have to go!!

[John o'Sullivan]

How many individuals of how many species are conservationists prepared to kill in order to support your particular view of "what is desirable".

Can you not see that their is very little difference between your actions and the actions of gamekeepers killing species that compete with game birds.

Conservationists believe in the primacy of "natural", "native" and "wild" species and want to kill all sorts of stuff in attempts to maintain numbers of species that are essentially currently evolutionary unsuccesful.

If instead of seeing the world through a conservationists lens you were capable of seeing them through an evolutionists lens you would look at skeins of canada geese and admire their ability to survive in a human dominated world. You would be glad that the natural world had species that were capable of utilising humans in order to spread sustainable genetic diversity throughout the human world.

You would see that these new dynamic expanding species and developing eco-systems were best suited to the modern human dominated world.

There would be school parties taken round nature reserve to see the ruddy ducks and the canada geese and the himilayan balsam and the sycamores and the holm oaks and the rabbits etc etc and we would be delighted in the power of evolution and the innate ability of the natural world to fill evolutionary niches. As the evolutionist equivalent of David Attenborough might say "even here there is new life" "next year who knows what will be here"and in "twenty years god alone knows". This would be percieved as good and people would be happy when Sacred Ibis bred in Britain for the first time.

It is only because conservation is a 20th and 21st centuary zeitgeist that so many people routinely believe that e.g. mandarins competing with goldeneyes is a "bad" thing.

Most organisations will support this sort of belief precisely because it is one of the current zeitgeist. It is self fullfilling and self righteous.

I know I get nowhere by posting this sort of reply but every now and again I get saddened by the fact that more and more individuals of more and more species are killed in the name of conservation and dismayed by the dogmatic acceptance that it is right.

Never Trust a Gamekeeper in Conservationists clothes. Oh I keep forgetting they are one and the same.

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by John o'Sullivan

How many individuals of how many species are conservationists prepared to kill in order to support your particular view of "what is desirable".
Can you not see that their is very little difference between your actions and the actions of gamekeepers killing species that compete with game birds...

So John, no doubt you sincerely believe that the introduced rats and mice on Gough, Tristan and Henderson should be allowed to prevail. Then, when native breeding birds have been extirpated, "we would be delighted in the power of evolution and the innate ability of the natural world to fill evolutionary niches" (and see how much better the world could be without meddling conservationists).

[I'd wondered what had happened to your almost identical anti-conservation post to this thread on Tuesday (although I recall that one started with something like "You lot are all the same..."). It appeared for just a moment, but then mysteriously vanished before anyone could reply. Strange things, computers...]

Richard

[Adam W]

Originally Posted by John o'Sullivan

Can you not see that their is very little difference between your actions and the actions of gamekeepers killing species that compete with game birds.



Never Trust a Gamekeeper in Conservationists clothes. Oh I keep forgetting they are one and the same.

Yes I can see that very well thanks and why you then seem to assume thats a bad thing I dont know.

As for your last comment then you might do well to stop forgetting and realise that yes they very often are one and the same.

[captaincarot]

Originally Posted by John o'Sullivan

How many individuals of how many species are conservationists prepared to kill in order to support your particular view of "what is desirable".

Can you not see that their is very little difference between your actions and the actions of gamekeepers killing species that compete with game birds.

Conservationists believe in the primacy of "natural", "native" and "wild" species and want to kill all sorts of stuff in attempts to maintain numbers of species that are essentially currently evolutionary unsuccesful.1

If instead of seeing the world through a conservationists lens you were capable of seeing them through an evolutionists lens you would look at skeins of canada geese and admire their ability to survive in a human dominated world. You would be glad that the natural world had species that were capable of utilising humans in order to spread sustainable genetic diversity 2 throughout the human world.

You would see that these new dynamic expanding species and developing eco-systems were best suited to the modern human dominated world.

There would be school parties taken round nature reserve to see the ruddy ducks and the canada geese and the himilayan balsam and the sycamores and the holm oaks and the rabbits etc etc and we would be delighted in the power of evolution and the innate ability of the natural world to fill evolutionary niches. As the evolutionist equivalent of David Attenborough might say "even here there is new life" "next year who knows what will be here"and in "twenty years god alone knows".3 This would be percieved as good and people would be happy when Sacred Ibis bred in Britain for the first time.

It is only because conservation is a 20th and 21st centuary zeitgeist that so many people routinely believe that e.g. mandarins competing with goldeneyes is a "bad" thing.

Most organisations will support this sort of belief precisely because it is one of the current zeitgeist. It is self fullfilling and self righteous.

I know I get nowhere by posting this sort of reply but every now and again I get saddened by the fact that more and more individuals of more and more species are killed in the name of conservation and dismayed by the dogmatic acceptance that it is right.

Never Trust a Gamekeeper in Conservationists clothes. Oh I keep forgetting they are one and the same.

4

1 without the interferance of humans the species would not be there in no way is this evolution, for it to be evolution the species would have to have colonised the ecosystem in question independantly without the intervention of man.


2 you speak of genetic diversity yet utterly ignore the the fasr more diverse genetic material of the species which are being pushed out through unnatural non evolutionary competition.

presumably one would assume if a man was to plow up a wild flower meadow and sow it with wheat you would also consider this to be the process of evolution increasing genetic diversity. particularly if the wheat then spread to surrounding fields.

3 really can't see him saying this at all not as he actually does believe evolution to be the cause of everyones existance rather than some creator


4 if you're not bright enough to distinguish the difference between, someone attempting to rectify the damage and imbalances caused to species by the actions of unthinking man and unthinking man attempting to bring about unnatural imbalance in species diversity for the sake of farming a species in order to subsequently kill it , then you really do have problems

[Amarillo]

Originally Posted by John o'Sullivan

How many individuals of how many species are conservationists prepared to kill in order to support your particular view of "what is desirable".

Can you not see that their is very little difference between your actions and the actions of gamekeepers killing species that compete with game birds.

Conservationists believe in the primacy of "natural", "native" and "wild" species and want to kill all sorts of stuff in attempts to maintain numbers of species that are essentially currently evolutionary unsuccesful.

If instead of seeing the world through a conservationists lens you were capable of seeing them through an evolutionists lens you would look at skeins of canada geese and admire their ability to survive in a human dominated world. You would be glad that the natural world had species that were capable of utilising humans in order to spread sustainable genetic diversity throughout the human world.

You would see that these new dynamic expanding species and developing eco-systems were best suited to the modern human dominated world.

There would be school parties taken round nature reserve to see the ruddy ducks and the canada geese and the himilayan balsam and the sycamores and the holm oaks and the rabbits etc etc and we would be delighted in the power of evolution and the innate ability of the natural world to fill evolutionary niches. As the evolutionist equivalent of David Attenborough might say "even here there is new life" "next year who knows what will be here"and in "twenty years god alone knows". This would be percieved as good and people would be happy when Sacred Ibis bred in Britain for the first time.

It is only because conservation is a 20th and 21st centuary zeitgeist that so many people routinely believe that e.g. mandarins competing with goldeneyes is a "bad" thing.

Most organisations will support this sort of belief precisely because it is one of the current zeitgeist. It is self fullfilling and self righteous.

I know I get nowhere by posting this sort of reply but every now and again I get saddened by the fact that more and more individuals of more and more species are killed in the name of conservation and dismayed by the dogmatic acceptance that it is right.

Never Trust a Gamekeeper in Conservationists clothes. Oh I keep forgetting they are one and the same.

An interesting viewpoint.

Although I think you go WAY too far in your anti-conservation argument, I do think you have a point.

I think there is a balance to be struck between textbook conservation theory and real life. I think each situation needs to be assessed individually, but there are times where I think more common sense needs to be applied and less textbook theory.

Eagle owls in the UK would be a prime example. Going by the book, they are escapes and shouldn't be here, but common sense says that they are likely to have been here before and could easily colonise anyway. The authorities won't accept them, yet propose introducing a very similar top predator (white tailed eagle) into East Anglia where it is no more proven to be native than the eagle owl is! A similar situation with wild boar. Why do the conservation authorities concentrate on introducing new species eg beavers, but completely ignore one which has introduced itself unofficially and allow it to be persecuted? The circumstances surrounding the appearance of both wild boar and eagle owl in the UK are not ideal, but they are here - so doesn't it make sense to give them legitinate status and protect them first before introducing new species?

[Espen]

Originally Posted by captaincarot

1 without the interferance of humans the species would not be there in no way is this evolution, for it to be evolution the species would have to have colonised the ecosystem in question independantly without the intervention of man.


2 you speak of genetic diversity yet utterly ignore the the fasr more diverse genetic material of the species which are being pushed out through unnatural non evolutionary competition.

presumably one would assume if a man was to plow up a wild flower meadow and sow it with wheat you would also consider this to be the process of evolution increasing genetic diversity. particularly if the wheat then spread to surrounding fields.

3 really can't see him saying this at all not as he actually does believe evolution to be the cause of everyones existance rather than some creator

4 if you're not bright enough to distinguish the difference between, someone attempting to rectify the damage and imbalances caused to species by the actions of unthinking man and unthinking man attempting to bring about unnatural imbalance in species diversity for the sake of farming a species in order to subsequently kill it , then you really do have problems

i totally agree!!

This is what i think: if a species has been introduced but is doing no harm to any other species then they deserve to stay as they are just an addition to the natural ecosystem

if a species has been introduced and is threatning anothe species then it has to go- wheather you like it or not it is not a natural species and it is because of us that another species is being threatene by them, its a priority realy, a native species comes before a non native species

and i personally would rather see: goldeneyes rather than mandarins, lesser woods rather than parekeets, barn owls rather than egyptian geese

iff new species come naturally e.g. little egrets then of course they deserve to stay!:)

[Mysticete]

Going back to page 1, I think some non-native species are able to do so well because they are able to find novel niches that humans have created, and at least some of these species probably are harmless. I would argue that most non-native parrot introductions in the US are probably relatively harmless (Monk Parakeet is an economic concern, but I don't think has caused issues for wildlife). House Geckos probably also fall in that same category.

As for John's arguments, life will survive on this planet long after we are gone, even with the massive extinction we are causing. However, for fully aesthetic reasons I would rather live in a world rich in diversity than one filled with starlings and House Mice, as would I would gather most people on this forum.

[chris butterworth]

Originally Posted by Steve Dudley

I've heard that now Mandarin has reached Scotland it is competing with Goldeneye for nest sites. It may even compete with other hole-nesting species, I dont know.

While there is a distinct possibility that Mandarin may displace Goldeneye in Scotland, this is one of those cases where the benefits outweigh other considerations. Goldeneye are a widespread and, in many places, common species whereas Mandarin are globally threatened - there may be as many Mandarin breeding in UK as in their heartland in Japan i.e we may have up to 50% of the worlds breeding population here in UK. Introduced species, on the whole, do affect the local flora and fauna, and usually in a detrimental fashion, but each case has to be considered on it's own merits.
Chris

[chris butterworth]

Originally Posted by Espen

Fugl, i see what you mean but i dont think you Quite know what the difference between a species that is a native species and has become feral and an alien species that has become feral, in America, canada geese are native and although they have become feral, they are still part of the ecosystem. Whereas in Britain canada geese are now commoner than the native greylags which isnt right, yes there are feral greylags which would normaly be a lot more timid than they are now, but they are not threatening the native birds because they belong here.

I'm afraid you're getting feral and introduced mixed Espen. "Feral" only refers to domesticated species/ breeds that have "escaped" and have a viable breeding population in the wild ( horses and donkeys in North America and camels in Australia, Wild Boar in Britain ). Introduced animals are those such as House Sparrow and Starling in North America, Rabbits in Australia and Canada Goose and Pheasant in Britain i.e they were introduced for the sole reason of establishing a breeding population in the wild.
Chris

[Espen]

Originally Posted by chris butterworth

I'm afraid you're getting feral and introduced mixed Espen. "Feral" only refers to domesticated species/ breeds that have "escaped" and have a viable breeding population in the wild ( horses and donkeys in North America and camels in Australia, Wild Boar in Britain ). Introduced animals are those such as House Sparrow and Starling in North America, Rabbits in Australia and Canada Goose and Pheasant in Britain i.e they were introduced for the sole reason of establishing a breeding population in the wild.
Chris

ok introduced

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by chris butterworth

Mandarin are globally threatened - there may be as many Mandarin breeding in UK as in their heartland in Japan i.e we may have up to 50% of the worlds breeding population here in UK.

This mistaken view is often quoted, and seems to have somehow become enshrined in British birding folklore!

Mandarin Duck is not globally threatened. BirdLife International considers the population to be 'very large' (estimated at 65,000-66,000), and classifies it as a species of Least Concern (not even Near Threatened):
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/spe...sp&sid=418&m=0

[The UK population is estimated at 7,000 (Baker et al 2006: Population estimates of birds in GB & UK).]

Richard

[Steve Dudley]

Originally Posted by chris butterworth

Goldeneye are a widespread and, in many places, common species

I think there is a danger here in accepting that because the species being impacted upon is 'common' it is OK. We all know that once common species have undergone catastrophic declines so safeguarding any species must start before they are vulnerable, at which point pressures such as threats from a non-native organisms may be a deciding factor in their survival (and may have already played a critical factor in the decline).

[Amarillo]

I think another aspect to this is when (if ever) do you class a non-native species as native? taking for example rabbits in the UK, they have been part of the ecosystem for so long that most people don't consider them non-native. And if we decided to remove them, I'm pretty sure there would be a negative impact because the ecosystem has evolved around them.

I can't imagine parakeets or mandarins have become as important link in the ecosystem as rabbits, but I think there is an argument that there should be some kind of cut-off point where you say right, these are now part of our wildlife regardless of how they got here.

[lashinala]

True, some would say the same thing with wolves here in the North America: the gray/timber wolves are actually 'less native' than red wolves, but few talk about saving the reds. A lot has to do with public realtions/media. Coyotes aren't 'native' to the southeastern U.S., just filling a niche left after the wolves were eradicated.

[Mysticete]

Actually genetic research suggests that the Red Wolf probably isn't a distinct species, and is probably (at least the modern population) a hybrid between the gray wolf and Coyote...

[JerryMN]

I read a couple of post here taking about filling a niche. I think that maybe happening here in America with the Monk Parakeet and the Arizona Peach Faced Love Bird. The last Carolina Parakeet died about 1918 in a zoo. They were exterminated because of being agricultural pests and the desire for the feathers for hats. So, there's a hole in our ecosystem. What they do for our ecosystem? I don't know. But they were here for millions of years. Those parrots may be hearing the "Call of the Wild." -- "Get out of that nice fancy apartment and repopulate North America with parrots."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Parakeet

[bkrownd]

Originally Posted by John o'Sullivan

I know I get nowhere by posting this sort of reply but every now and again I get saddened by the fact that more and more individuals of more and more species are killed in the name of conservation and dismayed by the dogmatic acceptance that it is right.

Individuals are irrelevant, and individual lives and deaths are irrelevant. Your "sadness" is an irrelevant and misplaced selfish human emotion. Native species and the natural ecosystems they form are the only thing that is important. True conservation is about protecting Nature as a whole, not about mere individual creatures. Conservation is about trying to preserve native species and even more importantly native ecosystems - the very fabric and essence of Nature and natural diversity, which is the rich and wonderful and varied product of this world's entire evolutionary history. If we protect the integrity of their ecosystems, including from introduced invaders, they WILL have a secure future that is as close to "eternal" as our tiny human minds can ever try to comprehend. But people like you would throw all of that away just so you can selfishly feel good about being "nice to the bunnies" or somesuch. You see, conservation is also about protecting Nature...from the misguided motivations and emotionalism of people such as yourself.

[John o'Sullivan]

Many, many things to reply to. Some of them

The first one is that the original missing post that Richard refers to was removed by me because I changed my mind. I think it was a bit intemperate and I decided that I didn't want to get involved in this discussion again. Then I got sucked in by the underlying self-righteousness and the fundamentalism of the underlying belief systems. The sort of study that drives this thread is a feasability study. One of the aims of the study (even if not explicitly stated) is to identify what can be killed next

I am not anti "conservation". I am anti many of the current conservation practices.

I am also anti some of the underlying belief systems e.g. primacy of "native" which is an irrelevant concept if you look at the world through the eyes of an evolutionist. Evolutionary processes don't care if a speces is "native" or not.

Evolution wants the opportunity to mix species together in order to develop collections of species that can manage the current evolutionary opportunity. In a human dominated world these will be species that can tolerate humanity. Most of the species that humans don't like are succesful. We now have a ludicrous situation where humans are reducuing numbers of the unsuccesful and the succesful. We are killing species at both ends.

Native", "natural" and "wild" are human constructs that are very emotionally loaded, the integrity of eco-sytems is oxy-moronic.
Unfortunately like many emotionally loaded firmly held beliefs they lead to actions that the proponents believe are RIGHT an extreme example of this being Gott mit uns.

Quote from last post "Individuals are irrelevant, and individual lives and deaths are irrelevant". Brilliant but surely a wind up.

Evolution is driven by success (no emotive human beliefs systems required).

If conservationists came out and admitted they were gamekeepers then I'd at least admire their honesty and we might get rid of some of the hypocritical attitudes held by conservationists with regards to gamekeepers. This might help some conservationists with their self righteousness.


The example of the rats/mice on offshore islands is an interesting dilemma as far as I am concerned. THe obvious short term conservation driven thing to do is remove the rodents ( I'd trap them if I had to do it). There are other much more complex questions to be answered however

e.g. is this population of seabirds likely to survive or will global warming, the acidification of the oceans, pressure on seafood stocks likely to lead to the eventual desertion of the island anyway.

Also if you remove the human driven belief systems and just leave it to evolution the succesful species will die out and a new variety of a globally succesful species develop. On Gough, Tristan and Henderson given long enough through evolutionary processes brought about by geographical isolation we will end up with new species of rat and mice. Possibly as part of a new self sustaining eco-system.

We will have the British Grey Squirrel if we wait for long enough. A species that will be self sustaining and fit for purpose i.e. able to survive in an increasingly human dominated world.

All around us their are many species of flora and fauna driven by evolutionary processes putting together new vibrant fit for purpose self sustaining eco-systems. For some reasons conservationists have decided that they know better than evolution and they are attempt to re-order the world in the shape they see as desirable.

[lashinala]

As comments go, I'll try several also:
Mysticete, there is a possibility that 'fossil' red wolves predate coyotes and greys, as claimed by R. Nowak. Unfortunately, the 'recents' were selected by humans for wolflike traits in the near past. Even the 6 red wolf skins PCR tested for mtDNA were selected by humans (a never ending cycle of subjectivity?), same for nuclear/microsatellite. More importantly, do they act like wolves or coyotes? Are they thinking as a wolf, or coyote? Function in an ecosystem...
bkrownd: I'm with you, but your conclusions were drawn from years of island ecosystem study/observation....i.e. for most others "A little learning is a dangerous thing", and sometimes a cute bunny is what gets people interested in nature to begin with (I read Ranger Rick as a kid). Others don't have your unique experiences, as most haven't seen what you've seen. There is an 'evolution in thinking' that got to your conclusions, no need to denigrate others for evolving differently.
John o'Sullivan: Our human dominated world is a flash in the pan compared to most other species around us. It won't last as a consumption society. Acting as such, island ecosystem conservation makes sense long-term, as we may need birds for future island navigation (among other reasons), as Polynesians have done for millenia. Rats and mice just use us for mobility. We are convenient. Most won't survive long on islands, and if you don't 'earn and keep your niche' (as many natives have done), you will eventually get caught cheating...possibly taking others out with you as you go (Amarillo's point). Once you dirty the place, adding dirt won't clean it.
Don't get it dirty. Just my $0.02

[Adam W]

Originally Posted by John o'Sullivan

Quote from last post "Individuals are irrelevant, and individual lives and deaths are irrelevant". Brilliant but surely a wind up.

I know it sounds a bit harsh but I think that looking at the bigger picture thats statement is true.

Take for example the decline of Grey Partridges,the best thing that can happen is to continue shooting them,of course that sounds strange and obviously it isnt very good for the individuals that die but for the species as a whole its a good thing because as long as people can shoot them people will make sure there is a healthy population to be shot. So yes i guess ultimately the individuals are irrelevant to what happens to the population over all.

[Adam W]

Originally Posted by bkrownd

Individuals are irrelevant, and individual lives and deaths are irrelevant. Your "sadness" is an irrelevant and misplaced selfish human emotion. Native species and the natural ecosystems they form are the only thing that is important. True conservation is about protecting Nature as a whole, not about mere individual creatures. Conservation is about trying to preserve native species and even more importantly native ecosystems - the very fabric and essence of Nature and natural diversity, which is the rich and wonderful and varied product of this world's entire evolutionary history. If we protect the integrity of their ecosystems, including from introduced invaders, they WILL have a secure future that is as close to "eternal" as our tiny human minds can ever try to comprehend. But people like you would throw all of that away just so you can selfishly feel good about being "nice to the bunnies" or somesuch. You see, conservation is also about protecting Nature...from the misguided motivations and emotionalism of people such as yourself.

Crackig post that mate, spot on

[John o'Sullivan]

John o'Sullivan: Our human dominated world is a flash in the pan compared to most other species around us. It won't last as a consumption society. Acting as such, island ecosystem conservation makes sense long-term, as we may need birds for future island navigation (among other reasons), as Polynesians have done for millenia. Rats and mice just use us for mobility. We are convenient. Most won't survive long on islands, and if you don't 'earn and keep your niche' (as many natives have done), you will eventually get caught cheating...possibly taking others out with you as you go (Amarillo's point). Once you dirty the place, adding dirt won't clean it.

I agree with some of this we may well be a flash in the pan. That is actually one of my core beliefs. Also many of the species that are introduced or move around the world as a result of man's activities won't survive. Evolution is about winners and losers.

Evolution is all about change, conservation is all about stagnation.

Evolution has been going on for billions of years conservation for is it less then 1-200. I remember reading somewhere that conservation is credited of being first represented by the Sierra Club founded 1892?? Who on earth thinks that evolution needs human help in any way??

It is not rats and mice however that use us for mobility it is evolutionary processes. Species that are either useful to humans or are able to "hitch a ride" are moved around the world using a variety of processes so that evolution ensures that genetic material is moved around in order to maintain as much biomass as possible. We are the new tectonic drift.

Evolution doesn't need particular species it needs genetic material. It doesn't care if it is bird or mouse or plant or microbe all it needs is potential. Some of this potential will endure and some will die out. Some of the "introductions" will die out but some will survive to become the new "native" or even the new "endemic".

Evolution doesn't need the particular species that are on these few islands that conservationists get so excited about. It doesn't need these birds although some birds somewhere would be useful although not essential.

Our impact on the longtitudinal future of the world is indeterminate although conservationists like to use terms like "catastrophic". It is one of my problems with conservation it gets all excited about change and extinctions seeing it/them as disasters as opposed to a fundamental part of natural processes.

Dirty is an example of an emotive human concept. It is an example of the stasis that conservationists attempt to impose upon the world there is desirable (clean) and undesirable (dirty). These constructs are not "real" they are impositions.