Re: Alien Conservationists

 


There's no doubt that there is a pest aspect of grey squirrels,
particularly
where they damage trees, predate on small birds and chew
up garden bird feeders.
 However, I would not wish to see the grey
squirrel controlled and I think that
a lot of the 'countryside
do-gooders' who are promoting this are wrong.  As you
have said Angus,
the grey squirrel is now native to the UK and is part of the
ecology of
the UK.  As with most ecological systems, they become balanced if man
doesn't interfere!

On a personal note,  my summer 'el fresco' breakfasts on the patio,
would not be
the same without the grey squirrel's company!  It rather
annoys me to hear that
some of my near neighbours have joined the 'trap
and kill the squirrel'
campaign..... especially when most of them have
cats!!


--
Pest Effects

 



The grey squirrel has become *naturalised* in the UK, but this does not
and cannot make it "native". Angus's claim that any squirrel born here
is "native" does not make the whole species native. And, yes, obviously
they are a part of the country's ecology and became so from the day the
first ones were released. They are, though, having a harmful effect on
native species, not just the red squirrel but trees, too. If nothing is
done about them, there is every expectation that the red squirrel will
become extinct on mainland Britain. Do you want to see that happen?


But in this particular case the squirrels are here because man
interfered by introducing them in the first place. And the "balance" you
mention can only happen at the expense of our native red squirrel. Is it
a "balance" to gain one introduced species at the expense of another
indigenous one? Is it a "balance" when mink supplant water voles on our
rivers?

--
Malcolm

 


<snip>

 Is it

Of course it's a 'balance' (if I may use that term in this context), since
the ecosystem will have been adjusting/adapting to changes in circumstances,
including the presence of 'new' species and the absence of 'old' ones. It
might not be the 'balance' some people prefer and are prepared to accept, of
course, but it's a 'balance' nonetheless.

 




                      < snippage >



If man, and man alone, is the primary cause of all these
imbalances - which he indeed is - then if they really exercise
you that much, then the answer seems pretty obvious. Get
rid of man. Because "interfering" with nature in various ways,
is part of man's self elected role on the Earth, and always
has been.

Which in itself doesn't justify meeting out wanton cruelty to
defenceless creatures which are capable of feeling pain,
but that's another matter.

I suggest you console yourself with the fact that life
forms of one form or another, all the way up from trilobites
through woodlouse and silver fish equivalents, all the way
up to cats and squirrels and chimpanzees co-existed
quite happily for 350 million years, prior to man's arrival
on the scene. And his brief 250,000 year tenure on the
earth as homo sapiens, let alone his 20,000 year(?) long,
totally unsuccessful campaign to fully mould nature to his
will. And will doubtless take up where they left off, once
humans depart the scene. Be it from totally resistant viruses
such as a highly contagious strain of influenza; climatic castrophes
brought about by global warming, volcanic activity or meteor
strikes; nuclear or biological warfare; nuclear accidents,
chronic water shortages, or more simply a surfeit of
MacDonalds hamburgers.  The demise of the red squirrel
in the UK should be the least of mankind's worries IMO.
The likes of cockroaches, slugs, fungi, and bacteria
are going to win in the end, whatever we do.


michael adams

 



Who said they did?


Perfectly true. Man interfered by introducing the grey squirrel. Man is
interfering again by trying to control its numbers in those parts of the
country which still have reds. Some people seem to think that this
second interference shouldn't take place.


Except that that's often given as the justification against a second
interference.


Err, the mere fact of evolution denies your claim that they "co-existed
quite happily" :-)


Some would say that viruses will "win".

--
Malcolm