Displaced Populations and Extreme Rarity (or Who cares if species become extinct?) (1 Viewer)

I am trying to bring together a few disparate themes that have already been discussed on the Forum, hopefully in a sensible way and to provoke further discussion.

Some of these issues will be of greater or lesser relevance to individual members, depending upon where you are in the world, but I think it will be interesting to get worldwide opinions on this issue, perhaps refering specifically to local circumstances.

So please, members worldwide… DO JOIN IN!



There are, officially, more than 1000 bird species threatened in the wild. Some of these species are more threatened than others, and some are in a critical decline, or already extremely scarce.

That is on the one hand.

On the other hand, there are a number of species who, either through the deliberate or accidental influence of humankind, have established displaced populations by exploiting ecologocal niches, and are so successful as to range from self-sustaining to (in some people's eyes) vermin - or if not actually vermin, then they have become a threat to endemic populations either through competition or hybridization.

Some of these populations have developed from a very small original stock – perhaps less than 10 birds!

Often, Conservation Bodies expend a lot of energy, and spend a lot of time and money trying to save threatened species from extinction, working with captive populations down in double, if not single figures.

My old favourite Spix's Macaw, it seems, is now down to zero population in the wild, and just a very few captive birds.

In SE England (in and around London, I believe) there is a self-sustaining population of Ring-necked Parakeets.

Now I'm not suggesting that Spix's Macaw would be equally successful in the leafy suburbs, but to me there seems to be a potential for the same kind of success.

Surely there is a case for taking small populations of threatened birds, releasing them in a suitable, but naturally alien environment, and letting them save themselves.

Even if they compete against the endemics: What does it matter if we lose 25% of Eurasian Starlings, if we were to establish a viable "wild" population of Bali Starlings? We are talking about making the difference between extant and extict!

Ah… but "extinct" is also a very emotive word.

Back to Spix's… who cares if Spix's, or any species goes extinct. The birds themselves don’t care – they will all die eventually, whether or not they have produced offspring, so why not just let them go?

Instead of throwing money at lost causes, why not concentrate on saving habitat, and let the birds look after themselves?

So, move them, leave them alone, captive breeding, habitat preservation, something else?

Feel free to take this topic anywhere…

Absolutely, to save species, their habitat must be saved, and enough of it to sustain a viable population. And that is the one thing that Man, earth's universal fungus, will not be able to do, as its own population irrevocably expands.

Unfortunately, you cannot just turn species-- endangered or otherwise-- loose in an alien environment, because we are not yet able to accurately assess its impact. Unforeseen results too often occur.

That's my turn. Next?

Protect the habitat and release captive bred 'back' birds into it.
Oh, and stop all these foreign countries (Malta et al) from the wholesale slaughter in which they indulge.
I think Charles said it all really.

We have a thriving colony of Ring-necked Parakeets here in Ramsgate, Kent, I've heard of a colony of budgerigars that have survived some years in Shepherd's Well in Kent. I've no statistics on the effects on other bird life. What I have noticed is that their presence heightens people's interest in birds, which has the result of more people getting bird tables, putting food out, which presumably also helps indiginous species. Conversely, many people in Ramsgate say, "Those b****y birds wake me up early every morning with their infernal squawking!"
Certainly with global warming, there must be a case for introducing a threatened species into an area where they might have a chance?
Then there is the grey squirrel-red squirrel argument. Speaking as someone who has never seen a red squirrel, I adore the grey ones, but might feel differently if I had watched a local red squirrel population decline as a result. I would be very sad if a bird introduced into the area artificially were to cause the decline or demise of any of our local birds. But fluctuations and changes occur in nature anyway, don't they, and left to itself it balances out. Ghia hypothesis?
And also, there's the "have we done so much damage already to the planet, by our casual misuse, that whatever we do is too little too late" argument.

Charles Harper[/i] [B]And that is the one thing that Man said:

Ghia hypothesis?

Click to expand...

I'm sure you mean Gaia, Geraldine... unless you've gone on to a motoring theme o

Geraldine said:

And also, there's the "have we done so much damage already to the planet, by our casual misuse, that whatever we do is too little too late" argument.

Click to expand...

The sentiment I can understand... and yes it may well be too late. But a little might be enough, whereas doing nothing would certainly be too little.


As a general point, I should say that I am not 100% sure of my own position here, and may toss in a few ideas for everyone to mull over, where I do not have a definite stance. But I think it's a subject worth discussing, and hearing all the points of view.

I may also (and would encourage from others) a bit of "Devil's Advocate" - within sensible bounds, of course! - so that we can thrash out ideas.

Please don't be afraid of sticking to your guns, neither be afraid to change your mind (and then change it back if you want!); after all, it is not a black-and-white subject by any means.


Anyway, back to the debate, and to take up CJW's point... Preserve the habitats that we have... Yes! But if the habitat is so restricted, that any population will forever be critically endangered, should we not then let nature take it's course?

So instead of greater diversity with many endangered species, we have lesser diversity, but with more species having a stable population.

Will nature not tend to the latter any way, and are we not preserving endangered species to assuage our collective guilt - making them trophies?

Hi Birdman-intersting thread.

I'd be all for reintroducing species to areas where they have become extinct ( the White Tailed Eagle in Scotland being a prime example ) especially if it involved geniunely wild birds ( I dunno if those were wild or not....).

But introducing non-native birds..................it's an interesting idea. Could (eg) California Condor survive in arid areas of Africa ( I guess as it only eats dead animals its' food requirements could be met easily anyplace.......but then again it would be competing against the local old-world vultures and we could be in for a Ruddy Duck type situation........ ).

Lots of European birds have been introduced into the new world with negative results on the local native bird populatons ( esp New Zealand ). Birds can obviously thrive in areas where they have never existed but the fact is there are already other birds living there. Which are more important?

Hi Birdman, Sorry, meant Gaia. Not strong on spelling.
What about the re-introduction of such species as Red Kites, which I am thrilled about, and which is going very well, but could that be considered to be tampering with the established balance? How much do we interfere or not?

Could I suggest a long term view.

If evolution is true (and I know some who disagree) then there has undoubtedly been a process of rise and fall e.g. dinosaurs.
Maybe we are living in the age of the rise of humans which automatically means the fall of some other things. Could this then be described as part of a natural process and nothing new whatsoever? If so should we just go along with it? Will interfering by protecting things "artificially" have any long term bad consequencies? Is our evolution now in part at least, a mental evolution? Does this affect the fall of other species? Do we have a moral obligation to protect other species or should we do it for selfish reasons? Should we do it at all?

It is far too simplistic to believe we can protect every species in the world and that the demise of a single species is a tragedy. Wherever possible I think I would protect the environment and where species are competing without human interference I would stay out of it. Probably far too simple - there are no easy answers are there?

James

Geraldine said:

What about the re-introduction of such species as Red Kites, which I am thrilled about, and which is going very well, but could that be considered to be tampering with the established balance? How much do we interfere or not?

Click to expand...

I think the important word here is RE-introduction. The only reason red kites need to be artificially introduced is that we have artificially removed them.

I think we need to avoid extinction wherever possible when it is caused by unnecessary short term action of man. All creatures on the planet (including us) will eventually be naturally selected for extinction. This may be unfortunate but is inevitable. What is avoidable is our own selfish attitude towards the planet driving out so much life and impoverishing us and future generations.

CJW said:

Protect the habitat and release captive bred 'back' birds into it.
Oh, and stop all these foreign countries (Malta et al) from the wholesale slaughter in which they indulge.

Click to expand...

Hi CJ,

Of course you're in the lucky position that for you, England is also a foregn country, what with the wholesale slaughter of Hen Harriers in which some b*stards indulge . . .

Michael

True Robin, but "we" also artificially removed wolves and beavers (slightly off topic I know, but I can't name any birds off the top of my head) and let us not forget that this small island of ours used to be covered in trees.

Many of our common bird species from 1000 (?) years ago are significantly reduced or extinct (Corncrake springs to mind), whilst equally, many of our common countryside birds are only as common as they are, relatively speaking, be cause we have turned out country into one huge farm.

As Geraldine says... tampering?

Now this isn't just a UK topic, but these valid points must have significance elsewhere in the world?

James, I could have a whole other debate with you regarding evolution versus creation and how it affects our "role". But you are right to consider the very long term, whilst of course not forgetting that our actions now will influence the very long term.

Just noticed Michael's response to CJW.

As abhorrent as the slaughter of birds is, and as influential as this can be regarding species populations, we must consider how our actions can accommodate the populations of birds that exist.

No Slaughter plus No Habitat still equals No Birds.

birdman said:

True Robin, but "we" also artificially removed wolves and beavers (slightly off topic I know, but I can't name any birds off the top of my head) and let us not forget that this small island of ours used to be covered in trees.

Click to expand...

Hi Birdman,

Great Auk, Dalmatian Pelican, Night Heron, Little Egret, Common Crane, Spoonbill, White-tailed Eagle, Red-backed Shrike, Wryneck, maybe more.

Michael

In Dover, most people hate the seagulls, because they make noise, nest on our roofs, tear open our rubbish sacks. People shoot them with air guns! They miss the point that the seagulls were here first, and that the gulls don't know our roofs aren't cliffs. Just because there are a lot of them, doesn't mean we should exterminate them.

We are now are now artifically putting beavers back (here in Kent) and some would argue that parts of the UK could happily support wolves. Wolves have been given a very bad press - perhaps they could employ Alistair Campbell.

robinm said:

... Wolves have been given a very bad press - perhaps they could employ Alistair Campbell.

Click to expand...

There are those who would agree that putting Alistair Campbell in a room with a pack of wolves sounds like a very good idea .....

.... so much for day dreaming, now back to the topic in hand.

The idea of finding a similar, but geographically remote habitat and introducing a species is an interesting one. My first thought went something like ... Nooooooooooooooo! But on reflection I can see your point; not all artifical introductions have been disasters and, to some extent, species rely on unusual occurences to help with their spread or dispersal. So humans could be the equivalent of a hurricane blowing a flock of birds off course ..... but with some thought and intelligence behind the process.

Brilliant, and thought provoking thread Birdman.

For me protecting the habitat we have together with regenerating habitats we have lost is the most important aspect of life, not just birds but all things (this includes us) We are polluting the atmosphere as well as destroying vast areas in the world. Will we ever learn, I doubt it. Money talks and unfortunately Politicians, by and large, go for the popular vote i.e vote for me I will cut Council tax and the waiting time in Hospitals or vote for me I will save the environment. Given those two scenario's majority would vote for the 1st. I fear that that will never change.

Regarding introducing any form of life into an alien environment, i.e Ruddy Ducks etc, I am totally against it. One never knows what problems it can cause. Re-introducing is a different matter. That is putting back what was once lost, i.e the Red Kite is a good example. They were part of this countryside of ours many years ago and it is right that they should be back amongst us.

Unfortunately, whilst we are all bird lovers, we musn't forget that birds are only a part of what is being lost on a daily basis on this planet earth. I wish a solution could be found but whilst we are hell bent on destroying ourselves through wars and pollution, etc, what chance have we of protecting those that cannot protect themselves.

Interesting topic. What I am about to point out does not indicate my overall opinion. It is just a consideration.

Imagine the Spanish Sparrow was near extinct in Spain fifty years ago and they released some in Britain. The Spanish Sparrows flourished in Britain much to the detriment of the Tree Sparrow. The result being the Tree Sparrow declined faster than it has done and is now extinct. My point being is that introductions at the expense of healthy bird poulations could reduce the healthy birds' sustainability against a crisis.

Well put, Helen.
By our very existance we affect the ecology of an area. By our agriculture we encourage the increase in some species to the detriment of others. Insects flourish who are able to feed on things we grow. Then we invent a new insectiside, and endeavour to wipe that insect out, thus damaging the chances of birds who have increased in response to the insects increase.
Rabbits too, until we invent horrible ways to diminish their numbers. Would there be as many pheasants if they weren't bred for the gun? Would there then be fewer foxes?
Compared with these things, introducing a struggling bird species into a new area, with careful planning by caring bodies of people doesn't seem to be too bad, does it?

Hi Reader,
With reference to the Red Kite point, should we re-introduce wolves, bears and wild pigs? And re-forest the countryside? I'm just arguing the question from as many angles as I can think of!