Thinking outside the box of Britain....

[Red Robin]

Aliens & Invaders - Sounds like the name of a computer game doesn't it. I'm a relative newbie to WAB and have quickly noticed that most folks here are somewhat anti any species described as alien or also which are in the slightest bit invasive. My own views aren't directly against such a view but neither are they pro without question. As my views have been challenged or questioned on WAB (in a generally friendly but passionate way), I am writing this in response and in the hope that this thread might at least provide interesting discussion. I am not setting out on a mission to convert others to my way of thinking or to attack anyone. Yes, this website is named Wild About Britain but why be quite so exclusive in attitude? It's not a branch of the British National Party is it?

I think it appropriate to define the terms 'Alien' and 'Invasive' as I understand them. Alien to me means foreign, unknown, strange, but to a lot of people it suggests something unearthly, extraterrestrial, and unfriendly. I suggest that things alien are not necessarily harmful. I understand an invader to usually be someone or something which spreads itself undesirably. Again, this might not be harmful. It's rather like defining a weed: It's only a plant which is considered by someone to be a nuisance and is unwanted in their own particular human-controlled setting. I love weeds as much as or as liitle as any other plant and I don't differentiate. Every living organism is hardwired to reproduce and spread itself - It's natural, and so is the competition for existance a completely natural urge.

If by using the term 'alien' we mean foreign, then 'non-native' means the same. But, native to where? Native to a defined system of ecology? Defined by whom? - In both cases defined by human beings. But I believe that human beings are merely another species of life on planet Earth and no more important than any other species, so who are we to arrogantly dictate or think we know what's best. Borders between countries are only political lines on a map and history changes them over time anyway. Where the sea restricts spreading of species, the ecology of that territory tends to evolve more independently and slowly but it still evolves beyond human control and that's where the problem lies - Humans want to control everything. Regardless of the aspect of what degree of harm, I think that too much importance is given to whether a species is native or not.

If a spreading foreign species survives its new environment then who is to say it's not relevant to that environment or ecology? Of course I understand that if that invading species does harm, then there are reasons to try to eradicate it, but it depends on the extent of harm. How many species which are now considered by people to be 'native' were not native sometime ago? We are told that lions and monkeys once roamed Britain and so why can't they be classified as native if they were to return? Bears and Wolves anyone? Beaver? The very recent Collared Dove invader seems to be quite acceptable and isn't it now classed as native? But perhaps only because it doesn't do any harm, or rather I should say only because it doesn't compete with human's resources. A very good friend of mine is a keen fly fisherman and hates Hymalayan Balsam with a vengeance, mostly because it obstructs him. But another friend (they don't know each other) is a bee keeper and welcomes HB. My local river has loads of HB along its banks but it disappears in the winter so I see no particular harm, especially as it attracts so many bees and dragonflies etc when flowering. So which of my two friends is right? If left to its own devices, Mother Nature has a way of sorting itself out and it's merely intellectual what human beings think about it.

So perhaps it's okay to be alien but dodgy to be invasive and far worse to be both alien and invasive. Phew! I guess all those foreign folks in Britain such as those originating from afar can breathe a sigh of relief as they are only 'alien' and not invasive as well, having yet to declare war. Most are both proud to be called British and to follow their original culture and Britain is richer for it. However, rightly or wrongly how would many of the so-called natives of Britain react towards the now established foreigners when the going gets tough and there's competition for jobs and resources etc? It's competition for survival which brings out the worst in people. Who is racially truly native to Britain anyway? Early tribal peoples only fought each other in competition over resources. In relatively more recent human history they have also fought due to religion but only because commanded by their leaders and politicians, but that's another subject.

How long in planet Earth's history has mankind roamed on its surface? In the grand scheme of things it's only for a time shorter than a tiny fraction of a second - Hardly the blink of an eyelid, or as said by a Native American over a century ago: "Life is but the single breath of a Buffalo". Science shows us that planet Earth has already been through several ice ages and lethal volcanic activity. It may very well do so again, and soon, and in doing so totally wipe out mankind. So what! Things change. Why should everything stand still to suit mankind?

Change versus Conservation. On one hand human beings like to make progress, and on the other hand they are uncomfortable with change and want to keep everything as it is - "I don't care where you build it but not in my back yard!" etc. Whether you like it or not, nothing stands still not even whole mountain ranges and such rocks are very heavy indeed unless the Earth's Moon does a wobbly (quite possible). I'm not too bothered about changes in biodiversity or whether myself or my offspring die tomorrow - Contrary to what some say, taxes are not inevitable but death is, whether you believe it's a transition or not. But I would agree that it's a difficult balance and my problem is that I don't have a lot of faith in mankind's efforts/meddling/tinkering even when well intentioned. The problem is compounded and the natural balance further upset again when even more meddling is done to mend previous meddling! And on it goes. Seen objectively from outside the box, human constant meddling with the balance of nature is both tragic and utterly ridiculous.

So, some people may view my attitudes as irresponsible and uninformed but I wasn't born and brought up to follow the herd and I'm quite capable of using my own common sense and also making my own decisions, selfish or otherwise, without relying on being told what I can or can't do by other human beings - In fact I don't respond well to any strict authority: Born To Be Wild and Easy Rider are more my style. However, I'll always listen and am prepared to change or modify my views. Also I'm not especially patriotic about Britain in particular and all of this means that I prefer to think outside the box.

[Paul mabbott]

There's a lengthy thread on this (actually, several) which is worth searching out before you start the whole debate again. As you've noticed, there is a big problem in defining what are 'invading' species - there are all sorts of definitions with the result that folks are commonly arguing about totally different things!

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

There's a lengthy thread on this (actually, several) which is worth searching out before you start the whole debate again. As you've noticed, there is a big problem in defining what are 'invading' species - there are all sorts of definitions with the result that folks are commonly arguing about totally different things!

....Thanks for informing me of that. However, WAB is a huge site to search for such topics and as I wrote at the beginning of mine: "as my views have been challenged or questioned on WAB I am writing this in response".

[Kayleigh]

If we are responsible for bringing plants and animals into this country and releasing them into the wild where our own biodiversity is threatened then we should make a stand to protect it.
There are too many plants and animals to mention but why should we not protect what we have and if a plant is here and has nothing to feed on it to keep it down we should take steps to eradicate it why should we loose something just because something is bigger than our native species something that didn't make its own way here but something brought in by people and released into the wild.
Our wildlife has taken hundreds of years to evolve and does not have the defences to survive being pushed out by bigger none native species taking over this is not evolution as its not natural to our native species.
Yes it takes lots of money and man power to eradicate a none native invasive species but if the plant or animal was not brought into the country to start with we wouldn't have to spend lots of money protecting it..
The HB out-competes other vegetation and readily colonises new areas.
When the plants die down in winter they leave large bare areas that are sensitive to erosion on river banks.
Therefore reducing habitat and heightening the risk flooding.
We need to protect our wildlife why should we just let "nature take its course" when WE are the ones who let the aliens out in the first place..
The invasive species would not be here if if wasn't for us letting them loose into our countryside.
Keep native species (plants and animals) in there own native country..

[Wild-Woman]

I think we've wised up over the years to the damage that non native/ invasive species can do. It's a whole ecosystem that is undermined, not just one plant or animal that is knocked out of its niche. We can see the results when conifer plantations being replaced by the original heathland, forming habitat for birds such as nightjar. I'm pleased that attitudes are changing and we are looking after out natural heritage.

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by Wild-Woman

I think we've wised up over the years to the damage that non native/ invasive species can do. It's a whole ecosystem that is undermined, not just one plant or animal that is knocked out of its niche. We can see the results when conifer plantations being replaced by the original heathland, forming habitat for birds such as nightjar. I'm pleased that attitudes are changing and we are looking after out natural heritage.

....But eco systems have been 'undermined' as you call it (I call it 'changed') for centuries and much longer. It's good that people want to look after their patch but there's a lot of knee-jerk reaction and trying to mend things which you think need mending doesn't always work - There's a history of tending to upset things even more when mankind plays god.

Every generation thinks it has 'wised up' and knows best. You keep doing what you think is right though.

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by Kayleigh

If we are responsible for bringing plants and animals into this country and releasing them into the wild where our own biodiversity is threatened then we should make a stand to protect it.

There are too many plants and animals to mention but why should we not protect what we have and if a plant is here and has nothing to feed on it to keep it down we should take steps to eradicate it why should we loose something just because something is bigger than our native species something that didn't make its own way here but something brought in by people and released into the wild.

Our wildlife has taken hundreds of years to evolve and does not have the defences to survive being pushed out by bigger none native species taking over this is not evolution as its not natural to our native species.
Yes it takes lots of money and man power to eradicate a none native invasive species but if the plant or animal was not brought into the country to start with we wouldn't have to spend lots of money protecting it..
The HB out-competes other vegetation and readily colonises new areas.
When the plants die down in winter they leave large bare areas that are sensitive to erosion on river banks.
Therefore reducing habitat and heightening the risk flooding.

We need to protect our wildlife why should we just let "nature take its course" when WE are the ones who let the aliens out in the first place..
The invasive species would not be here if if wasn't for us letting them loose into our countryside.
Keep native species (plants and animals) in there own native country..

....You seem to be saying that everything should be kept in its box. Whether non-native species have been introduced here consciously or accidentally is somewhat academic - It continues to happen and is unstoppable. It's been going on for longer than millenia: Wind transports, animals and birds transport, commercial traders transport, vehicles/ships, all transport and spread species or the seeds of species. It's only a problem now because some people think or say it is and that's often based on competition, real or otherwise - As I think I wrote in my first post.

I'm not saying that's wrong but rather that's how it is and has been forever and a day.

I only used the HB as an example of opposing views, but regarding your claim that HB leaves large bare areas to potentially erode river banks, I can't say that this doesn't happen in places which were prone to erosion anyway but I walk along my local river bank to get to town nearly every day I'm here and I can show photographic evidence that there is plenty of new green growth of grasses and other plants amongst the HB stalks. I just need a machete in the summer to get through! Loads of very healthy nettles amongst the HB too.

Evolution doesn't restrict itself to being natural to a territory's natural species, as you put it. It's bigger than that and boxes are too small to contain it.

[Wild-Woman]

Originally Posted by Red Robin

....But eco systems have been 'undermined' as you call it (I call it 'changed') for centuries and much longer. It's good that people want to look after their patch but there's a lot of knee-jerk reaction and trying to mend things which you think need mending doesn't always work - There's a history of tending to upset things even more when mankind plays god.

Every generation thinks it has 'wised up' and knows best. You keep doing what you think is right though.

So what you're saying is that if we find out that an introduced species is wrecking an ecosystem, we should stand back and let it happen?

Realising a mistake is not exactly knee-jerk, it should be in our duty to put it right, even if that takes time and effort.

I definitely will be doing what I think is right.

[RoyW]

Firstly, as Paul has said, people are often arguing about different things when this subject comes up (and it will come up again and again - WAB is not an easy site to search for old threads, and 'wading through' replies on old threads is far from the easiest way to get your own questions answered in most cases).

Originally Posted by Red Robin

How many species which are now considered by people to be 'native' were not native sometime ago? We are told that lions and monkeys once roamed Britain and so why can't they be classified as native if they were to return? Bears and Wolves anyone? Beaver? The very recent Collared Dove invader seems to be quite acceptable and isn't it now classed as native? But perhaps only because it doesn't do any harm, or rather I should say only because it doesn't compete with human's resources.

There are of course many species that people think are native species because they were introduced a long time ago. This does not make them native though, it's just that many people are ignorant about changes that man has made to the wildlife of the UK (or whichever particular region is under discussion).
I would describe any wildlife that occurs naturally in an area as native - Collared Doves are described as native because they arrived under their own steam during a natural range expansion, whether or not they cause any harm to other wildlife or human interests is irrellevent (similarly Small Red-eyed Damselflies, which reached the UK in 1999, and Western Willow Emerald Damselflies, which have become established in the last few years, can be considered native species).
Transportation by wind and/or the natural movements of other wildlife is also natural colonisation.
A native species does not have to be one that has always been present.

Similarly a species does not have the automatic right to be considered native just because they did once occur naturally. If they return without human intervention, then they will once again be native species, if they become established after being released by man they are considered 'naturalised'.
It might surprise you to know that re-introduced species are often considered as 'naturalised populations', the same as species that which are only present because they have been transported by man. A look at the species categories of birds on the official BOU British list shows that mans influence in establishing current populations of these species is not overlooked (category C3 Naturalized re-established species - species with populations successfully re-established by Man in areas of former occurrence, e.g. Red Kite Milvus milvus).
If a very long period has passed between a period of natural existence in an area and introduction by man (especially thousands of years), then any attempt by man to establish a population will likely be considered an introduction, rather than a re-introduction though. Lions and Monkeys may have existed in a wild state in the UK in the past, but that was so long ago that a release could hardly be considered the reestablishment of a native species (IMO).

Originally Posted by Red Robin

Where the sea restricts spreading of species, the ecology of that territory tends to evolve more independently and slowly but it still evolves beyond human control and that's where the problem lies - Humans want to control everything. Regardless of the aspect of what degree of harm, I think that too much importance is given to whether a species is native or not.

If a spreading foreign species survives its new environment then who is to say it's not relevant to that environment or ecology? Of course I understand that if that invading species does harm, then there are reasons to try to eradicate it, but it depends on the extent of harm.

I think that it is misleading to say that when the sea (or other geographical features presumably?) restricts the spread of species, the ecology of the isolated territory evolves more slowly. The introduction of a new species to an isolated ecosystem, whether by man, or through natural colonisation, will often result in far large changes to the composition of species (and hence the overall ecology), than the addition of a species to a less isolated ecosystem.
Sure, the way that ecosystems naturally evolve is largely beyond human control (habitat management proves that man can have some influence - which has helped with the conservation of some species after man has destroyed much of their natural habitat). When it comes to introduced alien/non native species it's more a case of trying to prevent man having an effect on the evolution of ecosystems though - and I see nothing wrong with us trying to prevent the loss of species in naturally evolving ecosystems by trying to remove competition from species that are only there because of man, and which are therefore not part of the natural ecosystem.

The idea that the degree of harm caused by non natives should be considered before attempts to remove them is often raised. The problem is that once a species has been allowed to become established, and has spread to the point where they are causing a lot of harm to natural ecosystems it is almost always far too late for any effective control, and invariably too late for any chance of erradication.
Man has already caused the extinction of a very large number of species in fairly recent times, partly through directly killing them, partly because we have deliberately & accidentely moved other species around the world. Measures to prevent the introduction of more alien/non native species to new areas are there for very good reason, and these, plus attempts to control/erradicate exisiting populations of non native species, are to try and allow ecosystems to evolve naturally - not to try and control them (ie. trying to reduce our effect on nature).

You seem to be suggesting that because we can't always prevent non-native species (those introduced by man) becoming established and competing with (or pushing out) native species we just shouldn't bother trying, despite the fact that introduced species have been shown to adversely affect native species - leading to a loss of biodiversity on the planet as a whole (not just changes as you have said on other threads, permanent extinction in some cases).
It may be difficult to prevent occasional accidental introductions of alien/non native species, but some countries seem to be doing very well at doing just this (eg. New Zealand).

[Fauna]

Originally Posted by Red Robin

Evolution doesn't restrict itself to being natural to a territory's natural species, as you put it. It's bigger than that and boxes are too small to contain it.

I think we can all agree on the above...but we are spreading species around the planet far greater than they would "naturally". Not all of these introduced species will cause a problem, but there are a great number that do.

Here is an interesting article, may be relevant?

What triggers mass extinctions? Study shows how invasive species stop new life


Whats your thoughts on the laboratory strain Caulerpa taxifolia.

Regards Chris