BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Blake" data-source="post: 1709333" data-attributes="member: 16170">Hi FicedulaI think you've expressed some important things really well.As also became apparent on at least one other thread recently (about wild boar in Britain), I'd say that there are several common assumptions about wildlife which do not stand up to close scrutiny.These assuptions are:natural = goodunnatural = badcreated or influenced by humans = unnaturalindependent of human influence = naturalIMO we have to manage the community of living things we are part of as best we can, aiming for a healthy and diverse ecosystem and following the best ethical standards we can. As far as I can see 'natural' can be a very useful working concept in conservation, but no more.Jurek's suggestion that without human influence Eagle Owls on the continent would have been in more of a position to colonise Britain is an interesting one, but surely at best no more than an untestable hypothesis.  But it does again show up how problematic the concept of 'natural' is.I'd like to point out again that removing Eagle Owls doesn't necessarily have to mean killing them.cheersJames</blockquote>