attitudes towards invasive species

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by The Woodman

The EA spend over £2m per year dealing with invasive species.

....£2m is peanuts.

The EA don't dredge the rivers as often enough as they ought to either.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Adam Cheeseman

Hi Ric,

Have to say I would disagree in that Feral Pigeons and songbirds 'sic' occupy pretty much different niches in the ecosystems they occur and wouldn't outcompete each other for nest sites, food and so forth. Having covered most of the churchyards in Hounslow I can assure you that around here you can get both sets alongside one another quiet happily.
Going back to the OP I wouldn't say that FPs are an invasive species in the same way as many plant and animal species cited as they are 'native' to these islands though being a human creation from the wild Rock Dove. I can appreciate that they may be an agricultural pest however.

Cheers,

Adam

Fair comment. Perhaps I don't spend enough time in towns, Boo-Hoo. As regards FP's "invasive" status, we are are back to definitions. Are rabbits "invasive"? The rabbit population of the UK reaches ~30million in summer. Accepting that rabbits are indigenous to the UK, which is still an open question, are not such numbers "invasive"?

I do seem to have opened a can of Lumbricus terrestris here.

Ric

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Red Robin

^^^^
@ RoyW:
Re Joe Public, truly excellent post - Really well expressed. I couldn't agree more .

Bambi versus King Kong! It comes down to

people's perceptions and bad public image encouraged by bad press and propaganda. The same applies in warfare: Those in power demonise an enemy. It happens in peacetime too: Those different coloured skin neighbours are scum etc, or non-believers in our religious faith are devils etc.

It's partly why I don't blindly respect the rules which human beings insist on making. As far as I'm concerned, national frontiers don't and shouldn't exist for wildlife.

You nicked that off me!

[STYRBJORN]

ROY - Thank you for returning to the fray. As far as my initial question goes, you have, I think summed up the consensus on WAB, at least among those who have responded, better than I did.
We seem to regard origins as pretty much irrelevant. If an introduced species offers a direct threat to the species survival of a similar indigenous species then it may be incumbent upon us to restrict the spread of the invading/invasive/introduced species. Otherwise, mind your own business. If on the other hand some given species whether native or furren becomes a "pest" in some circumstances, or at some times, then in the interest of the greatest good of the greatest number it may be necessary to control the numbers of that species.
Thus, I have no qualms about shooting foxes on stock farms. I will not shoot foxes on arable farms, where they are if anything beneficial in keeping rabbit numbers down. Flocking pigeons and corvids on arable farms are a major pest at planting season and the only practicable method of control is by shooting. So be it. The population of these birds is vastly higher than would be the case in a truly "wild" landscape. I care deeply about species survival but individual members of a prolific species get little sympathy from me; provided always that death is quick and clean.
I have perhaps tried to cover too many of the questions raised by my OP. So just for the helluvit, one more. How about dropping the term "pest" and replacing it with "parasite"? Add "commensal" and "symbiotic" and the debate can get really interesting.

Ric

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Gillian - well yes but. Knowingly to kill or take any bird not listed on the General Licence is a serious offence.

In fact since the update with the CRoW act in 2000 it is an offence to "knowingly, recklessly, or negligently take" - ie in addition to it being an offence to shoot a rock dove (for example) knowingly, it is also not a defence to say " i thought it was a feral pigeon gov" (reckless), or to say " I was aiming for the feral pigeon next to it" (negligent)

BTW I entirely agree with Ric re air weapons - they have their place in pest/invasive control - but that place is in the hands of an experienced and competent individual - not in the hands of someone who has never picked one up before.

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

You nicked that off me!

....Re "iggerant": Indeed I did nick it off you. Many thanks for an excellent word to add to my vocabulary. I'm sure I shall continue to use it whenever appropriate.

Who did you nick it off?

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

..........We seem to regard origins as pretty much irrelevant. If an introduced species offers a direct threat to the species survival of a similar indigenous species then it may be incumbent upon us to restrict the spread of the invading/invasive/introduced species. Otherwise, mind your own business. If on the other hand some given species whether native or furren becomes a "pest" in some circumstances, or at some times, then in the interest of the greatest good of the greatest number it may be necessary to control the numbers of that species.
.........

I would both restrict this and broaden it out a bit (sorry! ). The things that we should worry about most are those that will upset/damage/whatever a whole community or guild of native species. The worry about the establishment of Harmonia axyridis is not that it will lead to the local extinction of (e.g.) Adalia bipunctata - won't. What it may do is to destabilise the system so that 2-spots, 7-spots, 14-spots &c along with some lacewings, syrphids &c become relatively uncommon. That would be a problem for both the natural ecotem but also for human horticulture and agriculture.

On the other hand, we often get very excited about local extinctions (i.e. in UK) of species which are common elsewhere in Europe (notably the red squirrel). Yes, it's nice to encourage some of our rarer species but how much time, effort and money should we expend on species which are not globally endangered? Especially when there are other species which are seriously threatened worldwide ....

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Red Robin

....Re "iggerant": Indeed I did nick it off you. Many thanks for an excellent word to add to my vocabulary. I'm sure I shall continue to use it whenever appropriate.

Who did you nick it off?

Brendan Behan! Borstal Boy ye iggerant bogtrotting culchie.

Ric

PS he did put one or two more expletives deleted in as well.

[Red Robin]

Ric wrote:

We seem to regard origins as pretty much irrelevant. If an introduced species offers a direct threat to the species survival of a similar indigenous species then it may be incumbent upon us to restrict the spread of the invading/invasive/introduced species. Otherwise, mind your own business. If on the other hand some given species whether native or furren becomes a "pest" in some circumstances, or at some times, then in the interest of the greatest good of the greatest number it may be necessary to control the numbers of that species.

....That's very much exactly how I view the subject.

Now, where's my air-rifle? I spotted that pest of a cat in my garden.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

I would both restrict this and broaden it out a bit (sorry! ). The things that we should worry about most are those that will upset/damage/whatever a whole community or guild of native species. The worry about the establishment of Harmonia axyridis is not that it will lead to the local extinction of (e.g.) Adalia bipunctata - won't. What it may do is to destabilise the system so that 2-spots, 7-spots, 14-spots &c along with some lacewings, syrphids &c become relatively uncommon. That would be a problem for both the natural ecotem but also for human horticulture and agriculture.

On the other hand, we often get very excited about local extinctions (i.e. in UK) of species which are common elsewhere in Europe (notably the red squirrel). Yes, it's nice to encourage some of our rarer species but how much time, effort and money should we expend on species which are not globally endangered?

Too right. Red squirrels are cute likkle furry critters that live next door. Siberian tigers are big mean mothers that live on another continent. But - there's always a "but" - this site is Wild About Britain.

On a completely different note said he, hi-jacking his own thread, Claude Levi-Strauss said that a good scientist does not try to get the right answers. He tries to ask the right questions. I like that.

Ric