Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
Okay, apologies if I over-read your intented meaning - let's agree to a mutual more careful reading of posts
-
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.
Mad Guardian Article (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ColonelBlimp
- Start date
Okay, apologies if I over-read your intented meaning - let's agree to a mutual more careful reading of posts
For some reason....after reading this thread.....i am reminded of 'Nero'.........and his famous fiddle...[or was it a lyre]?...
ps......of course....Nero may have been playing with an entirely different instrument at the time of the great fire....i don't know...i wasn't there.....
pps...apologies for not contributing a more sensible comment on 'the matter'....am in a 'flip' mood having just watched the bbc news on climate change proposals...which made me think of nero...and ostriches...
ps......of course....Nero may have been playing with an entirely different instrument at the time of the great fire....i don't know...i wasn't there.....
pps...apologies for not contributing a more sensible comment on 'the matter'....am in a 'flip' mood having just watched the bbc news on climate change proposals...which made me think of nero...and ostriches...
:-O
ps...of course Nero may have been playing 'with' an ostrich....which is another matter entirely....and probably not a suitable subject to discuss here....[maybe on RF]..!
StuartReeves
Local rarity
I don't disagree with any of this except that I think 'climate change denier' is a reasonable description of Booker. There are two camps in relation to whether climate change is of anthropogenic origin, and from reading a few more of Booker's articles it is very clear which camp he falls in to, and his articles have to be interpreted in that light.
John o'Sullivan
Well-known member
Going back to the original article, I believe there is a lot of truth in the underlying ideas. I do not think it is coincidence that some-one who styles themselves Colonel Blimp is one of the chief proponents of the “native wildlife” argument.
I also do not think it is co-incidence that some-one who sees themselves as Anglo-Irish, European and a “Child of the World” i.e. me is much less interested in “native and natural”.
The original cartoon Blimp was a satire on the reactionary opinions of the British establishment of the 1930s and 1940s. Colonel Blimp has been called the representative of "all that [Low] disliked in British politics".
It is undoubtedly true that Racism and Xenophobia were core characteristics of the original Blimp and these characteristics were widespread amongst the establishment and much of the British population of the time.
It was this link between reactionary racist attitudes underpining much of the belief systems surrounding the concepts underpining the arguments around the pre-eminence of “natural wildlife” that I was alluding to on the feral parakeet thread when I described Colonel Blimp as a representative of the BBNP i.e. The British Birds National Party.
The underlying belief systems of both the BNP and the “BBNP” have wide ranging similarities. Amongst these are an idealisation of what is “right”, what is “desirable”, what is “natural”, a simplistic understanding of how things “should be” an an abhorence of “change” plus a denial of the absolute importance of “foreign influences” on “Britishness”.
The belief systems of many conservationists who would not be racists when it comes to human populations are undoubtedly influenced by “Victorian Values” and simplistic Blimp like absolutes when it comes to “Conservation”.
This is just one of my objections to “conservation”. The fact that it models intolerance to foreign invaders and bangs on and on about natural and native.
I also do not think it is co-incidence that some-one who sees themselves as Anglo-Irish, European and a “Child of the World” i.e. me is much less interested in “native and natural”.
The original cartoon Blimp was a satire on the reactionary opinions of the British establishment of the 1930s and 1940s. Colonel Blimp has been called the representative of "all that [Low] disliked in British politics".
It is undoubtedly true that Racism and Xenophobia were core characteristics of the original Blimp and these characteristics were widespread amongst the establishment and much of the British population of the time.
It was this link between reactionary racist attitudes underpining much of the belief systems surrounding the concepts underpining the arguments around the pre-eminence of “natural wildlife” that I was alluding to on the feral parakeet thread when I described Colonel Blimp as a representative of the BBNP i.e. The British Birds National Party.
The underlying belief systems of both the BNP and the “BBNP” have wide ranging similarities. Amongst these are an idealisation of what is “right”, what is “desirable”, what is “natural”, a simplistic understanding of how things “should be” an an abhorence of “change” plus a denial of the absolute importance of “foreign influences” on “Britishness”.
The belief systems of many conservationists who would not be racists when it comes to human populations are undoubtedly influenced by “Victorian Values” and simplistic Blimp like absolutes when it comes to “Conservation”.
This is just one of my objections to “conservation”. The fact that it models intolerance to foreign invaders and bangs on and on about natural and native.
Isurus
Well-known member
I'm sure the 11th Duke of Bedford would, if still alive, point to his saving Pere David's deer in mitigation.
tophillbirder
Well-known member
It's impossible to return to "the garden of Eden". We've been affecting the distribution of wildlife since we walked "out of Africa". Many species of mega fauna [large flightless birds, large marsupials etc.} are believed to have been wiped out by man 10,000's of year ago. England was largely forested up the the reign of Henry VIII. Rabbits which are a very important part of the UK ecosystem now were introduced after 1066. No doubt many self introduced species have had negative impact on native species.
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
Maybe he would, but I don't see the balance. He could have saved the deer without wiping out our squirrels. One does not connect with the other.
ColonelBlimp
What time is bird?
John o' Sullivan said:
I'm sorry, but I've never heard such abject nonsense.
Firstly, I fully accept and understand that change is an integral part of nature. Time, tide and evolution wait for no man.
Secondly, I fully accept that man's capacity for affecting such ecological change is innate and as "natural" as that of any other animal.
However, I fundamentally disagree with your view that thus attempting to conserve the biodiversity and ecological distinctiveness of an area is worthless.
In accepting that man can introduce various invasive species etc. to an area, and damage the distinctiveness and diversity of that area, still within his natural capacity to effect change, but leaving it there, you then come to a half-baked conclusion by not accepting that a desire to not do so can also be a legitimate human desire when faced with such change, i.e. to value such diversity and to seek to preserve it.
In the long run, a state of laissez-faire nihilism is perhaps the only reasonable standpoint. As long as we don't end up nuking the planet to dust, nature will compensate and always do the best she can.
However, the here and now is all we have. The actions of invasive species are visible right now and are categorically not helping the local distinctiveness and diversity. Therefore, saying that, in effect, "stuff happens", gives carte blanche to a degradation of the ecology before our very eyes, something that we can oppose just as 'naturally'.
Nationalism simply just doesn't come into it. It is irrelevant in my eyes. I couldn't care less if they were British birds or not, but if they are native, then that is my concern. Confusing native/non-native species with human issues of immigration and nationalism, as the writer in the Guardian did, is a dead end. It isn't racist to realise that the preservation of native species, instead of letting people tinker around with them, is the best way to help biodiversity in the abscence of any other absolutes.
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
There is however a question of how locally you wish to impose this definition of what is native and not native. For example, most of southern Britain naturally would be deciduous woodland - but none of us would argue against the vital protection of meadows full of orchids and butterflies where they exist, yet can we really say that they are native species for that habitat in that locality? In reality they are there due to human intervention. Naturally, we protect biodiversity in more ways than seeking the complete natural order of things.Then, when we get a species such as Eagle Owl that is certainly natural to the overall ecosystem, but possibly/probably present here thanks to human intervention (by means other than landscape alteration) and some call for complete eradication, regardless of evidence that the species co-exists with the same species elsewhere without impacting upon overall populations.
In some cases, the required action is clear and I think few of us will argue to the benefits of removal of, eg rats onto islands, etc, but again the blanket adoption of 'it ain't native, it shouldn't be' does need to be thought through a little more carefully on occasion ...in my humble opinion.
Last edited:
chowchilla
Maderator.
Humble perhaps, but also entirely accurate.
lewis20126
Well-known member
Indeed most of southern england would have been decidous woodland but there would have been tree falls areas and clearing generated & / or maintained by fire, grazing ungulates as well as treeless waterlogged areas which would have been "natural meadows". There are some great temperate examples of these in e.g. Yosemite and probably also many in Scandinavia?
cheers, alan
ColonelBlimp
What time is bird?
Jos Stratford said:
Although the question there is whether the species are native or not, not whether the nativeness itself is good.
Jos Stratford said:
As I said on the Eagle Owl thread, although native to the overall ecosystem introducing them to Britain (i.e. Whitendale) is risky due to the presence of an unnaturally attenuated hen harrier population that has already been shown to be prey to these owls. The owls' effects may well end up, via other predation, to be beneficial to the harriers-but noone has demonstrated that to be the case, and on the rather unpredictable effects of earlier introductions I would still advise extreme caution. There isn't any pressing need for the owls to be there anyway (apart from a suitably cute and accesible figurehead for the area!)
Of course, expunging the lovely people that shoot the harriers in the first place would be an excellent start: but getting rid of one threat shouldn't excuse consideration of the other.
Jos Stratford said:
I'm not arguing for wholesale wipeout of non-native species (although, if we had the necessary reserves of time, money and public opinion, I'm all for it). I'm saying that the baseline mantra should be that removal of non-native species, on the whole, is a good thing for overall diversity and distinctiveness.
Had a brief look in latest issue of Birdwatch the other day...i believe there was a bit of info regards Bubo...something along the lines of 'proof' that they were indeed present..albeit a long time ago in UK. [think someone has found tarsus of this species]? Only 'skim' read the piece in birdwatch...maybe i'm wrong.....apologies if i misread...[anyway...don't want to get 'hung up' on eagle owls again...ouch]!
ChrisKten
It's true, I quite like Pigeons
I guess I'm of topic, but I think you may be referring to this:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...4dXNDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
If I read it correctly the earliest record of Eagle Owls in Britain is around 400,000 years ago.
(I'm not getting involved in the native/non-native argument, just confirming your information |=)|)
Isurus
Well-known member
My point in raising that wasn't specifically that the two equate, due to the time period mos of these things happened 100 - 150 years ago, you can't apply a modern conservationist attitude to what was done. These guys were utterly oblivious to the risk and were doing things they thought were "good"
ChrisKten
It's true, I quite like Pigeons
Sorry, but you know someone will say it, so why not me.|=)|
I wonder if there will a similar post in a forum 150 years from now.
John o'Sullivan
Well-known member
Colonel Blimp
If thats the most abject nonsense that you have ever heard (actually read) you should read a lot more. Try scientology for a start.
Do you really think it is coincidence that you choose the name of the ultimate Little Englander as your username whilst holding strident views about the primacy of "native" species over "non-native".
Can you not see that there is likely to be an underlying belief system that links between the two.
Take some time to think about your thinking and you might see yourself and the original article in a new light.
In your reply to me you typed
"Nationalism simply just doesn't come into it. It is irrelevant in my eyes. I couldn't care less if they were British birds or not, but if they are native, then that is my concern."
Can you explain what this means??
If thats the most abject nonsense that you have ever heard (actually read) you should read a lot more. Try scientology for a start.
Do you really think it is coincidence that you choose the name of the ultimate Little Englander as your username whilst holding strident views about the primacy of "native" species over "non-native".
Can you not see that there is likely to be an underlying belief system that links between the two.
Take some time to think about your thinking and you might see yourself and the original article in a new light.
In your reply to me you typed
"Nationalism simply just doesn't come into it. It is irrelevant in my eyes. I couldn't care less if they were British birds or not, but if they are native, then that is my concern."
Can you explain what this means??
Last edited:
