attitudes towards invasive species

[Adam Cheeseman]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Further to Aeshna5's post, yes feral pigeons will flock to croplands close to suburban areas at planting times. In such circumstances, they are serious agricultural pests, a term I consider appropriate in this context, and can be controlled by shooting. I did say that shooting in built-up areas is very much a last resort. It is mostly carried out on railway stations.
Species they out compete in urban areas? Songbirds.
Ric

Hi Ric,

How do feral pigeons out-compete 'songbirds' in urban areas?

Cheers,

Adam

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

... but until you've defined the subject then you can't have an opinion! It's clear that people here have their own definitions on which they base their opinions (in some cases they have opinions on which they base their definitions ) so no useful consensus can arise from the discussion ....

Absolutely fair point. You have hoisted me with my own petard! I hereby withdraw my objections and apologise to any posters I may, albeit inadvertently, have offended. I was indeed using the term "invasive" rather loosely. I had in mind recent introductions such as grey squirrels, muntjac, mink, signal crayfish and the many and varied plant species, and that seemed sufficient unto the purpose.

On with the motley. I very much doubt whether a necessary and sufficient definition is attainable. It's like trying to define "art", or any given art. We shall see whether my intuition proves any more reliable this time.

Ric

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Adam Cheeseman

Hi Ric,

How do feral pigeons out-compete 'songbirds' in urban areas?

Cheers,

Adam

Territorially in a word. You get many songbirds in rural churchyards. You get them in urban gardens. You get them in urban parks. You don't get them in urban churchyards, or those lovely tree-lined avenues you see in our towns. Where you get one, you don't get t'other.Not a statistically firm proof tho', and I may be wrong.


Ric

[Farplace]

Originally Posted by Red Robin

....I'm not a Squirrel hater but I would hope you are aware that they can deliver quite a vicious bite and if you return 'Stephen' to the wild he may approach and turn nasty towards humans who don't happen to have a supply of his fave tit-bits in their pocket!

I do realise that most animals can hurt you if they feel they are given reason to, be they 'domestic' or wild.

I am very aware that squirrels bite. Squirrel bites are probably worse that rat bites. I am also aware that handreared wild animals - especially male ones - can be very nasty with humans. Stephen has not bitten anyone - YET - but he is a rapidly maturing young male, and we are aware it is only a matter of time before he will be potentially dangerous. The public are not allowed in his enclosure.
Stephen will not be released. It is illegal for us to release him - and it would not be a good idea to release him even if it was legal.
He lives in an extensive purpose-built "squirrelry" which meets the standards set down by Natural England and Defra. He has mainly natural foods, with the occasional treat of peanuts. We give him the peanuts so that while he is busy burying them in his sand pit, we can get out of the door without him trying to follow us.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Roy - I am sorry you have received that impression. My point was and is that I asked about attitudes towards and not definitions of invasive species.

My objection was to the way that you replied to earlier comments, which I cosidered extremely rude! You could perhaps have just pointed out the direction that you hoped the thread would take (as you have done above).
Anyway, that's beside the point now, because you have indicated that you could see how others might see the comments as relevant and have added an apology:

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

I hereby withdraw my objections and apologise to any posters I may, albeit inadvertently, have offended.

I wasn't one of the posters who may have been offended, but I respect those who are (occasionally) prepared to say that they were wrong!


Anyway, back to the 'proper' discussion...

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

I am certain that Joe and Jo Public are far less concerned about culling and population control of invasive species, especially when they become "pests" or threaten native species, than they are about the same methods with native species.

I'm not so sure that 'Joe Public' do always favour native British Wildlife over introduced 'invasive' species. In many cases I think that it comes down to factors such as (a)how 'cute' or 'pretty' each species is perceived to be, (b)how regularly the person encounters the animal, (c)whether the species causes any harm to the person themselves (whether physical, economic, or even emotional), and (d)the level of intelligence and/or ability to feel pain that the species is perceived to have.
As examples:
(1). Many residents of London suburbs will (probably) actively protest any suggestion that Ring-necked Parakeets should be culled, even if they are shown to out compete native species for nest holes (recent studies have found no significant evidence suggesting that this is the case). They are seen as colourful exotic visitors that people are happy to feed, and are not seen to do any harm - unless they cause damage to a fruit tree in the garden! However, the same suburban residents may well call for culls of native crow species and Sparrowhawks, because their lack of understanding of eco systems means they believe the negative propagander that these birds get - and they may even witness them killing smaller birds.
(2). Birds and mammals like deer (even introduced ones) are typically seen as animals that shouldn't be killed. Rats, mice, and especially insects on the otherhand are often killed without a second thought regardless of whether or not they are native.



My personal opinion is that each case really does need to be considered on it's own merits, with consideration given both to the impact on native wildlife, and to the potential survival of an introduced species in it's native range.
When an introduced species is in no danger in it's native range, but is potentially a threat to a native species, then eradication or control may well be the best option, however unpopular the decision is (eg. Ruddy Duck).

On the whole I would consider native species to be more important that those that have been introduced, and I would certainly not feel that any effort should be made to save introduced species in most cases. Lady Amherst's Pheasants were an interesting additional to the British avifauna, and I did go and see them on a few occasions, but I don't mourn their loss.
Theoretically there could be a situation in the future where an introduced species is threatened in it's native range making the introduced population important for the species survival (there may already be examples but I can't think of any off hand). If this was the case it would make any decision to control the species far more difficult (translocation back to the native range may not be possible if the reason for the decline there was habitat destruction), and would mean that protective measures probably should be introduced if the naturalised population started to decline as well - not all species respond well to captive breeding programs.

Let's not forget that native species can cause just as many problems for other wildlife as introduced species. The difference in these cases is that because they are native they are considered to have more right to be there. Control measures are frequently introduced for native species, but unlike for introduced species, there is no attempt to completely irradicate the entire population (at least not in the name of conservation!).

[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 iggerant 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.

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by Adam Cheeseman

Not sure about on private land but I would say probably not unless there was an absolute guarantee that either plant could not escape on to neighbouring land. Both species are covered by Section 14 / Schedule 9 of the WaC Act, which makes it illegal to plant or permit to grow these and other listed species to grow in the wild. Land owners are now obliged to take steps to get rid of these plants if they occur on there land.

As for edibility,HB shoots can be treated in the same way as rhubarb when they are young and still red.

Cheers,

Adam

....Ooops! So it's illegal to have HB on your own land is it

So how come that the 'land owners' of the riverbanks, be it private or common land (no such thing in reality), don't do much to eradicate HB?

[Adam Cheeseman]

Hi RR,

I know what you mean. I could cite dozens of examples. Quite simply they are now obliged to control HB, JK, etc, regardless. It's just that the local authorities, Enviroment Agency, Defra don't appear to be enforcing the regulations where they need to be applied most in many instances.

Cheers,

Adam

[Adam Cheeseman]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Territorially in a word. You get many songbirds in rural churchyards. You get them in urban gardens. You get them in urban parks. You don't get them in urban churchyards, or those lovely tree-lined avenues you see in our towns. Where you get one, you don't get t'other.Not a statistically firm proof tho', and I may be wrong.


Ric

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

[The Woodman]

Originally Posted by Adam Cheeseman

Quite simply they are now obliged to control HB, JK, etc, regardless. It's just that the local authorities, Enviroment Agency, Defra don't appear to be enforcing the regulations where they need to be applied most in many instances.

The EA spend over £2m per year dealing with invasive species. Our local rivers trust - South Cumbria, the National Trust and other organisations organise balsam bashing days regularly for example. Giant Hogweed gets sprayed every year by the EA and HA.

The ongoing eradication of top mouth gudgeon, motherless minnow and sunbleak and now the killer shrimp use massive resources alone. Signal crayfish is fast becoming a lost cause.

Other species culling /eradication have been debated on WAB, it's a massive problem requiring massive funding.