Japanese Knotweed versus Aphalara itadori

[Rob_D]

I base my concerns on the fact that authorities all too often use phrases such as "It is unlikely" etc. etc.

I accept that, in their opinion, the residual risk might be classified as low. But "low risk" is only acceptable when all viable alternatives have been considered.

Going back to the Cane Toad fiasco as an example, no doubt the scientists concerned went ahead, with the full knowledge available to them at that time, just like any such proposal nowadays. It still turned out to be a big mistake though.

There are never certainties or risk free actions in dealing with the environment. We have to accept that any policy we make carries with it a degree of risk. I'd rather that risk assessment was based on science and not on "the precautionary principle" which can be equally or even more risky.

AFAIK there was no real risk assessment of cane toads in 1935. The toads were released by the Bureau of Sugar Experimental Stations in Queensland. It would also be easy to imagine that they had poltical reasons to favour sugar production over any environmental concerns when they did it too. Perhaps at the time, sugar revenue was seen as far more important than the Australian environment. I don't think we're in the same biased situation here.

[Digit]

Until fairly recently Oz had a very laizzez faire attitude to intros, in fact they actually had societies for the introduction of alien species.
Where as the Sky Lark is in decline here I think you'll find that Oz has millions of 'em.

Roy.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Rob_D

...There are never certainties or risk free actions in dealing with the environment. We have to accept that any policy we make carries with it a degree of risk. I'd rather that risk assessment was based on science and not on "the precautionary principle" which can be equally or even more risky...

I agree entirely with your first statement -practically nothing in life can be guaranteed as risk free.

I'm afraid I can't agree with your second statement though.
Surely, to divorce the "science" from the "precautionary principle", and accept what is said on scientist's word alone is potentially leaving the situation open to the "what's in it for me" attitude I mentioned higher up the thread. (Don't forget, a helluva lot of science is driven by business motivation and quest for profit - I think you would agree that businesses are sometimes not averse to saying what we would want to hear if they think it will get them a bigger market share).

I firmly believe that the "science" always needs to be challenged by the "precaution" in all cases such as this, and only when there is general consensus of opinion from both sides, should things be allowed to move forward.

On that note -I capitulate - We both have valid points, and I think that we will just continue to air our own points of view. (By all means fire one last bullet at me if you wish, my skin is reasonably thick - but I think I've about said my piece. ).

Regards
Mike.

[Rob_D]

Sure, I think we pretty much agree anyway.

As for the precautionary principle be careful - it's not a scientific approach but a political or philosophical idea. I am not suggesting throwing caution to the wind, but perform a balanced risk assessment which is NOT the same as the precautionary principle. It seems to be becoming very popular idea amongst politicians like Tony Blair and the European Commission, but if applied excessively it has severe implications for society and progress.

[tcvarlh]

I do not feel belittled by former statements, I would not feel so when the garage-man whistles, huffs and makes the noise which means sometime later I will be paying a large sum of money to him for work I do not understand fully. I would not expect any layman to understand my work; I do expect to have my posts read in the light in which they were written. I am no biologist, merely an interested human. There was never intent to express fear that these critters would change diet and cause a pizza famine. Of course, if a certain ape had not changed diet, the authors of these posts would be wondering where the next bunch of figs were to be found and why the hairy toothed beast prowling around the base of the tree below wouldn't go away.
and out.
tcvarlh

[sometimes]

We must never lose sight of ethics and the will of the people, irrespective of what science, miltary or other 'experts' say. Hopefully, gone are the days when mad scientists can action their own best intentions independantly. Whatever the final decision, we don't need a situation of 'I told you so' if something goes wrong, it damages science and the relationship science has with the general public.
I've no doubt there will be (must be) a clear and unambiguous (we've all seen weasly words) risk assessement. 'The people' (Government) should then decide on the appropriate way forward.
The wee beastie may provide additional (unquantified) benefit as well as possible (unqualified) potential for 'danger'. They may be a valuable food source for warblers for instance.

[stigofthedump]

I've been following this for a while now, and am still not convinced. How can a risk assessment cover all eventualities of species interactions? I fear far too greater task for any mortal!
Consider the Cane Toad, already mentioned, who would have thought to look into the inter-species relationship between it and the Fresh water crocodile, not me for one! Yet they are attributed for the decline of some 77% of mortality of this apex predator in some parts of Australia (New Scientist July 2008)
For the introduction of any non-native species into the environment we would have to look into all aspects of the life cycle of the species. Consideration would have to be given to many things..If this insect had a total monopoly on JK then for them it's boom time, then comes the bust.
Insect then finds food hard to find, here comes the crunch. Adaptation. Short-lived and prolific breeders can adapt rapidly.....Ouch

Now I'm not very good on insect ecology but, just as a thought, has anyone covered the release of only genetically modified (sterile) insects? would this work?

Vince

[stigofthedump]

Sorry, just checked my last post ( how come things sound right when you think them and never come out right when you type them????)

.....They are attributed to the decline of some 77% of this apex predator.

[Adam Cheeseman]

Originally Posted by Badgerman

We must have the only patch of protected Japanese Knotweed in the country, since it has a large Badger Sett within its confines!

Perhaps they like jam

Cheers,

Adam

[tameblackbirds]

I have JK at the bottom of my 60metre garden. Never touched it I have lived here 20 years and it has never spread. Know that it will grow from the tinnest cutting so leave well alone. When it dies in winter snap of dried shoots snap them into small sections and tie it into bundles. I hang these up round garden for insects to hibernate in. some good use for JK