This thread is probably going to descend into another fight as every controversial subject seems to! Sorry Seagull, not your fault, it just seems to be the way it is!
However, my take on it is that interfering with nature should be taken on a case by case basis as every situation is different and should be considered separately.
For example, I have no problem whatsoever in providing supplementary food for birds im my garden as I believe that this is only replacing the loss of natural food sources brought about be changes in farming methods. Without this supplementary source our avifauna would be depleted. However, I know some perople disagree with it. Same with providing nestboxes - replacing lost habitat, but some would disagree. Same with for example, protection for Schedule One breeding bird species. I've worked on projects to provide protection for such species (of course under the appropriate licence, with training and employed by conservation organisations
). All species that would most likely disappear without such intervention. But again, some would disagree with such interference.
Conversely there are situations where I wouldn't interfere, but others would.
