attitudes towards invasive species

[STYRBJORN]

I posted earlier today in the "pest species . . ." thread about sycamores being an invasive species, and got a smack on the back of me leg from John M because it was irrelevant. I'm not so sure.

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. Paradigmatic are grey squlrrels, which may yet wipe out reds, and muntjac which are unmitigated menaces to understorey, crops, fruit, flowers, and threaten the habitat of many woodland birds. I suspect that there are members of WAB who wouldn't shed a tear if a systemic disease wiped out every signal crayfish in our waterways. Japanese knotweed? The various other plants which are choking rivers and canals?

I detect the same bias amongst at least some WAB members. And why not? Our primary interest in here is British wildlife.

This has led me to another question. When does a species become accepted as British, albeit by adoption? I believe that the horse chestnut was introduced by the Normans. It is now threatened by a borer beetle which could prove as destructive as was Dutch Elm Disease, and there is great concern about it. Fallow deer were also brought over by the Normans, sycamores came in at the turn of the 17th C. and both are now an accepted part of the British landscape. Come to think of it, rats are invasive - in more ways than one.

To return to invasive pest mammals, I get the impression that some, perhaps many, members have no problem with quite draconian control measures provided thay are carried out as humanely as possible.

I will now don my helmet and flak jacket and await the opening salvos.

Ric

[John_M]

I didn't mean that the issue of invasive species was irrelevant. The discussion was on whether there should be a separate section for pest species enquiries.
Attitudes vary from species to species. There have been a few people to advocate killing things like Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam, Greys (squirrels not aliens), Harlequin ladybirds and species that are, or are percieved to be, destructive or in some way threatening to our 'native' flora and fauna.
While there is always going to be some controversy, I think that the mere fact of a species being invasive, 'foreign' shouldn't be sufficient to declare some sort of Fatwah on that species; for a start we'd have Joe Public gleefully killing off all the pheasants instead, and don't even mention getting rid of invasive species like horses, sheep and chickens...
It is clear (though not accepted by some) that there are circumstances in which some species need to be controlled. Two of the most contentious seem to be foxes, which I think is a native animal, and grey squirrels, which are not.
I am by my own admission a rabid, slavering, tree hugging veggie, but I can see that there are circumstances where foxes need to be controlled, and I can accept that. I can see that there are circumstances when grey squirrels need to be controlled, and I can accept that also, as long as the control is done by competent people. What I really can't accept is the assertion that if a species is invasive it must be destroy! kill! time. I think the non native origins of many species are really just used as a contrived excuse to kill something. I don't see many WAB members who write in, full of contrition at the thought they are helping in the spread of invasive species by not cleaning up the residue from their bird seed feeders. (Yes, that was meant to be slightly humerous).
Which brings me to your question of when a species becomes native. I don't know the answer to that one, I'm afraid. Maybe we should set some point in time, preferably after the introduction of wheat or potatoes or maize.
And I think it would be enormously helpful if nobody mentions Ragwort!

[Dorts]

The general idea of being truly 'native' is a plant or animal that was already here when the English Channel formed, about 9,000 years ago.
Many species have arrived since. Some naturally by chance, others have inadvertantly or deliberately been introduced. It is generally species from the latter group that cause the problems. Though whether or not they should be considered 'pests' is purely subjective.
Dorts.

[eeyore]

its worth noting that invasive and alien are different things anyway - there are many alien species that arent particularly invasibve, and there are native species that are a bloody nuisance in ecosystem management - like bracken invading heather moorland for example

[Deb London]

In answer to you Ric, I'm planning on developing a taste for venison this autumn, and I'll be relishing every last mouthful.

[John_M]

Originally Posted by eeyore

its worth noting that invasive and alien are different things anyway - there are many alien species that arent particularly invasibve, and there are native species that are a bloody nuisance in ecosystem management - like bracken invading heather moorland for example

Fair point.
One problem is that bracken is a native species, so the public perception seems to be that whatever it does is 'natural' and therefore OK, but in the case of say, Japanese Knotweed, it's 'alien' and should be stopped, as it is somehow a 'man made' problem.
I know a few people who seem to think that only non native species need to be managed, as they disrupt our 'natural' countryside; they tend to look baffled when I point out that almost nothing in our countryside is 'natural' as such, but has been to a grerater or lesser extent formed by the hand of man.
I just think it's not sensible to single out a particular species in its entirety; it all depends on the situation. Foxes around my house aren't a problem, but the lady who keeps free range hens a couple of miles away sees them in a slightly different light.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by eeyore

.... there are native species that are a bloody nuisance in ecosystem management - like bracken invading heather moorland for example

My 'ecosystem' here on our farm in North Wales is mainly unimproved grassland,
mixed woodland, river, stream and bog. There are a number of 'nuisance' plants but none so much as Bracken. I spend more time trying to control it than any other so called 'pest'.
Yes you are right, some native certainly are a bloody nuisance.
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Deb London

In answer to you Ric, I'm planning on developing a taste for venison this autumn, and I'll be relishing every last mouthful.

Kwl. I'll shoot a munty just for you and me!

Ric

[John_M]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Kwl. I'll shoot a munty just for you and me!

Ric

Just had a thought, which is probably a bad idea for me, but silly question time; is there a difference, in law, between shooting an animal because it's a pest, and shooting it for food? Obviously, whatever your reason for shooting it, your dinner table is by far the best method of disposal. What counts really is the primary reason for killing the animal? I'm sort of thinking along the lines of old laws prohibiting hunting deer, for us commoners at any rate. Thought that, since you shoot, you'd be in a better position to know?

[STYRBJORN]

Very good question John. There are species which are on "General Licence" and can be killed at any time, without regard to season or any other factors, other than that the killing must meet legally enforceable standards of humanity.The beast must suffer no avoidable pain. When I shoot a fox I aim to drop it in its tracks with one shot.

The position is rather different with deer. It is a serious offence to shoot deer without certain qualifications on your Firearms Certificate. The details don't matter here, but you must establish that you are competent to kill with a single shot.

As far as shooting "for the pot" goes, there is little difference. Rabbits are on General Licence. Whether you are shooting rabbits as "pests", or out with your .22lr to fill the freezer and get a few quid from your local butcher, the only legal criterion remains that YOU MUST IN LAW avoid unnecessary suffering. As a shooter I am in total support of this.

Ric