Mad Guardian Article (1 Viewer)

[s. james]

(I'm not getting involved in the native/non-native argument, just confirming your information |=)|)

Whyever not Chris? Join the fun!

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".

I'm sure the good Colonel can defend himself but I'd say you're maybe taking things a bit too far. Possibly he just liked the name?

Not sure if debate about human migration etc. is really relevant here? My views on native and non-native peoples in Ireland could open a whole new can of worms and whataboutery! (And that is definately all I am saying on that subject!)

Other than that I usually find your views pretty interesting so keep on posting!

 

[ChrisKten]

Whyever not Chris? Join the fun!

Well TBH Stephen, I'm not even sure I understand the argument.

I mean are there rules/guidelines, can you only go back a limited number of years?

If a species was here 1,000 years ago, does it still count as Native? What about 100,000 years, or 50 years?

Like I said I'm unsure of the rules of this game.|=)|

 

[fugl]

Well TBH Stephen, I'm not even sure I understand the argument.

I mean are there rules/guidelines, can you only go back a limited number of years?

If a species was here 1,000 years ago, does it still count as Native? What about 100,000 years, or 50 years?

Like I said I'm unsure of the rules of this game.|=)|

There are no rules, only endless wrangling

 

[ChrisKten]

There are no rules, only endless wrangling

lol, that's kind of what I figured.

 

[ColonelBlimp]

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".

As s. james said, I simply liked the name. It isn't as if I am typing this from my Turkish bath!

Also, my avatar is of a red squirrel, but just to calm your fears, I'm not actually a super-intelligent computer-literate squirrel either.

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??

I thought this would be self-explanatory, but apologies if my leaden prose has made this unclear.

In short, despite your efforts to portray me as an archetype 'Little Englander', I couldn't give a monkey's about the nationalistic aspect to wildlife, e.g. championing certain animals because they are of our country- "British birds for British birders" and all that. The best way in my opinion to encourage distinct, diverse and strong ecosystems is to champion the native species of any area, over invasive ones.

 

[Isurus]

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.

I'm sure there will.

It will probably have a quote along the lines of "can you believe they thought reintroducing those cloned mammoths to siberia was sensible! Idiots!"

 

[username]

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 |=)|)

Well....current info...[july birdwatch article] seems to suggest now that Bubo last recorded 10,000 to 6,000 years ago...post glacial?...not 400,000 years ago....[of course...i may have read it wrong]!

ps...like you....i ain't gonna get involved in the native/non native argument...again......all interesting tho....!

 

[lashinala]

Hey, lay off the mammoths there, island man. I happen to support that one. And so do most Siberians....especially the hungry ones.
The action of calling a bird that flies away from you a national treasure has some irony...if they all leave to another country then whose treasure is it? Do you go to war to get it back?
Heck, we tried like hell to kill our national symbol off and almost succeeded....damn those scientists that figured out it was thinning egg shells from a pesticide....that was for killing a native mosquito. Now we have tiger mosquitos that are 10 times worse. Talk about lack of forethought.
Global warming/climate change is a nice monetary diversion to get funding...for governments. I'm not a denier, as much as 1 that think that finite attention spans can be deceived by long distances and extended periods of time...I.e. If you can't guarantee the next generation continues your quest, then you're wasting time.
To eradicate species to the point that only a few keep a 'voice' in our drama here in the present is also wasting time. So OK, kill off the aliens, but only if there are still aliens somewhere else. We didn't have that luxury before global communications....now there is no excuse.

 

[Jos Stratford]

The best way in my opinion to encourage distinct, diverse and strong ecosystems is to champion the native species of any area.

However, you still need to consider how locally you wish to define 'native' as mentioned in the earlier post - because, and I suppose this is what inspires John's comments to a degree, you (and most of us) equate native species on the basis of national boundaries. If we talked at a more local level, certainly many of the species we (rightly) protect will not be 'native' to that exact locality, i.e. are only there due to habitat alteration by humans. On the other hand, if we talk more widely, i.e. by ecosystem, then certainly there are species some wish to remove that are 'native' to the overall ecosystem, i.e. our friend the Eagle Owl.

Even if we decide 'native' species are those that have spread naturally, it can be extremely difficult to quantify what is 'naturally' here and what arrived 'unnaturally' - sure Ring-necked Parakeets that arrived via cages would be difficult to explain away as natural, but is the spread of Collared Doves and Cattle Egrets any more natural? If we hadn't basically lined a road for them through habitat alteration, they probably wouldn't be in Britain. What about House Crows? Nobody physically took them to most of their outposts, they used their intelligence or resourcefulness to hop upon ships and thus spread in range. Basically, there is a complete gradient from 'natural' to 'unnatural', so it will be subjective to use this as a criteria.

So it takes me, at least, back to the only definition that has a slight basis - natural ecosystem, as far as we can define that! Eagle Owls are part of the Western European ecosystem, so is Britain. Only a BBNP member would champion their removal from part of this range

 

[Isurus]

Hey, lay off the mammoths there, island man. I happen to support that one.

LOL - so do I; I'm a huge fan of Sergey Zimov's work conceptually. that's why I gave it as an example :t:

 

[ChrisKten]

Well....current info...[july birdwatch article] seems to suggest now that Bubo last recorded 10,000 to 6,000 years ago...post glacial?...not 400,000 years ago....[of course...i may have read it wrong]!

ps...like you....i ain't gonna get involved in the native/non native argument...again......all interesting tho....!

You probably read it right, 400,000 was just the earliest. There's actually evidence that Eagle Owls were here in the Iron Age (less than 3200 years?).

(As before, I'm not getting into the argument, merely replying with information. Whether it's 10,000, 6,000, or 3,200 years ago, when Eagle Owls were in Britain, I'll leave it for others to argue if it means they are "native"|=)|)

 

[John o'Sullivan]

Hey Colonel Blimp,
I laughed out loud in amusement at one of your comments, usually I laugh out of incredulity (the Turkish bath one).

Your choice of username (Colonel Blimp) is not neutral any more than your choice of avatar (Red Squirrel).

If I could be ar**d I'd change my username to Blue Mink and use a photo of a Grey Squirrel as my avatar.

Symbols including language are important indicators to underlying belief systems they are also important indicators to the origin of said belief systems.

It took me a while to understand your non-nationalistic position to immigration.

As I understand it you are not against any particular nationalistic grouping (or individual species) as long as they stay in their own country and don't threaten the native population (the natural order) in other countries.

This does not however just apply to Britain you apply this position all over the world.

I understand this much clearer now.

John O'

 

[ColonelBlimp]

On the other hand, if we talk more widely, i.e. by ecosystem, then certainly there are species some wish to remove that are 'native' to the overall ecosystem, i.e. our friend the Eagle Owl.

Of course they are native to the wider ecosystem, but, you still haven't given me absolute proof that the (already attenuated) harriers would not be at risk. All I'm saying (and said in my last posts) is that given that there is no pressing need for these owls to be here, since they almost certainly didn't arrive on their own volition, the sheer complexity of the relationships involved, and perhaps the irrepresentativeness of the overall ecosystem, means that I tend towards caution.

Basically, there is a complete gradient from 'natural' to 'unnatural', so it will be subjective to use this as a criteria.

I fully agree that the issue of 'naturalness' is one big grey area. It reminds me of an issue in geography we studied a while back-i.e. America is an MEDC, and Malawi is an LEDC, but what comes inbetween? Blue tit vs. Eagle Owl? The trouble is, if we see the complexity of deciding what is an invasive species, and then decided to ignore the issue, trouble ensues.

In the abscence of any definites, I always think that championing the species that have been there for a 'while' (how long is a piece of string I wonder), i.e. a highly conservative viewpoint, offers the best bet against the chance of entrance of highly destructive invasive species. The question of the species that get here by their own volition is a tricky one, especially due to the effects of anthropogenic climate change etc.

Even if we discount any notion of naturalness, what do we replace it with? The rather alien concept of biodiversity? Aesthetics? Some criteria have to be used to avoid an absolute laissez-faire viewpoint.

 

[John o'Sullivan]

Colonel Blimp,

Once more the importance of language used is demonstrated. I would argue (as I'm sure you know) that their is not a gradient from natural to unnatural there is only natural.

Unless you are talking about purported supernatural occurances, miracles, demons, God, the return of King Arthur to rescue the British etc, etc.

The use of and belief in the concept unnatural will significanly affect the emotional, cognitive and behavioural response to a statement/belief/observation.

Also "highly destructive invasive species" is a perfect example of the type of emotive language that the journalist in the original thread starting article typed about.

Why not " Anthropocene adaptable species" or "Currently succesful species".

I notice that you have ignored my last post which addresses your original concern about the "Mad Guardian Article" and have gone back to your "Wild about Britain" position in order to return to your favourite topic which is "Keep Britain Tidy"

While I'm at this I'd just like to point out that I admire your perserverance and commitment to something that you obviously believe in. Obviously I disagree with your position but that doesn't stop me respecting your determination.

I am all in favour in the acceptance of difference.

John O'

 

[ColonelBlimp]

'Natural' is evidently a semantically diverse word, and my interpretation of it obviosuly differs from yours.

However, to be fair you have also ignored the points I have raised in earlier posts, i.e. how letting by inaction our ecosystems become less diverse, strong and distinct can ever be a good thing.

 

[ChrisKten]

Is this what Conservation is all about, continually disagreeing with each other?

Does neither side ever concede an inch?

Debate is good (and with the previous 2 posters, can be quite entertaining at times |=)|), but in the end doesn't a decision have to be reached, act or not act?

Although I guess it could be that what people say here has no effect in the real world anyway.

 

[ColonelBlimp]

Is this what Conservation is all about, continually disagreeing with each other?

Arguably John o' Sullivan's approach is the antithesis of conservation itself.

However, we are dealing with absolutes here: that is, is it right to get rid of invasie species. You do or you don't, and there isn't a middle ground.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Arguably John o' Sullivan's approach is the antithesis of conservation itself.

However, we are dealing with absolutes here: that is, is it right to get rid of invasie species. You do or you don't, and there isn't a middle ground.

However, on the Eagle Owl argument, it is not an absolute - the debate there is not whether to remove an invasive species, but whether the species is an invasive

 

[Jos Stratford]

Debate is good, but in the end doesn't a decision have to be reached, act or not act?

This is a forum, not a decision-making authority, so we can verbally bash ourselves to pieces all day. :-O

But actually the debate is good - whilst I may never fully agree with Colonel Blimp's approach for example, and I'm equally sure he will not fully agree with mine, nor John's, etc, those third-party persons reading get to see all viewpoints and can take whichever aspects they feel is most appropriate, or indeed dismiss it all.

At the end of the day, we all learn a little by seeing other person's views.

 

[Qingcol]

Is this what Conservation is all about, continually disagreeing with each other.

Disagree, argue, wage wars, its not very palatable but this is what we Homo sapiens along with every other species do, exploit the environment we find are selves in, and the set of genes that is able to build the best vehicle to do this survives, we are part of this process not some gathering of Greek gods looking down and fine tuning as we feel fit. Whatever we do will make very little difference, the best vehicle to survive will survive, the best we could ever do is speed things up or down a little. Of course we feel that we are as a species extremely intelligent and successful with are large brains, we are in a way hard wired to think this way but its far more likely in my view that a truly successful species would be one that changes itself and its environment very little over millions of years, big brains and intelligence a evolutionary dead end.