Hi All,
I’ve been meaning to write this for a while, and actually contribute to the more serious side of things for a change (rather than sitting around trying to expand my meagre knowledge of politics by learning from you lot) now seemed as good a time as any!
Some of you may know I’m a conservation biologist/ecologist, and as a profession we’re trying to answer some tough questions at the moment and sometimes I think we’re all too much in the same mindset and need a fresh perspective. I don’t think we ask “the public” enough (just industry, farmers and other interested “stakeholders”) so, really informally, here’s me, asking you lot what you reckon. I can’t promise your answers will get anywhere, or do anything, other than maybe change the way I think about things: I’m not very senior at the moment, but who knows, one day!
1) How much should we be trying to “turn back the clock” with conservation? Preventing further damage is somewhat less controversial (with some exceptions) but should we be:
a) Removing invasive species, (e.g. grey squirrels) even if this means culling them?
b) Relocating people to create/restore natural areas?
c) Destroying “unnatural” habitats to recreate “pristine” ones
2) How can “we” (the west/developed world etc.) possibly expect/ask/force “them” (developing countries) to protect their biodiversity when we’ve ballsed ours up so spectacularly?! More specifically if we do, how do we go about it?
3) Should “nature” earn its keep? For example sustainable hunting of African wildlife, where the revenue is ploughed back into conservation.
4) By the same token should we be “paying for ecosystem services”: a good example of this is pollinators, should farmers be paying towards the maintenance of bee populations that pollinate their crops (whether wild or “beekeepered”)
That’s all I can think of, off the top of my head on a Monday, I may add more if I can think of them!
Finally, my thread my rules: if this gets heated all name calling must be highly creative, and no swearing. (I’m thinking Monty Python’s “your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries”) Double points for being animal related, quadruple points for Latin names!
Lotsa questions, dot! Quick answer to 1(a). 'Removing invasive species, (e.g. grey squirrels) even if this means culling them?'
ReplyDeleteYes - where I originally come from in N. Antrim there was one of the few remaining pockets of red squirrels in NI in a tiny, beautiful little area with hazel trees and a waterfall. I didn't see any this summer, and I fear they are gone for good.
Needless to say, I blame the immigrants. (Gotta have some politics in this, right?)
fabulous,,
ReplyDeletewill return later
great style
Like 3p4 said. I thought the Red Squirrel would turn up. I think that, erm, horse has long bolted. Even when I was a kid the Red was a half-mythical creature. I can't see there being any support for a campaign to blitz the greys; they're thoroughly naturalised now, and there's no going back to some mythologised Victorian Christmas Card squirrel nutkin business. On the other hand, I think you'd get plenty of support in removing more recent incomers, especially the various oversized, warty frightening Chinese examples of things that the tabloids shriek about.
ReplyDeleteRelocating people has happened with archaeological sites, albeit usually some generations back, and doesn't have a happy result. Far better to show people that they can actually benefit from living with the animals (remember, fish and humans and co-exist!) - hasn't this happened with the Maasai, and with various people in/on game reserves in Africa? Again, there's an archaeological parallel: in Peru, once local people were shown that archaeology was their heritage, that it was being wantonly destroyed, and that they could benefit from tourism and pride when new museums were built, looting of archaeoligical sites went down hugely.
Possibly a profitable set of parallels there, but I intended not to post now...sheesh.
Dot
ReplyDeleteLot of questions there and will need some thought but re the first one - I don't think we can turn the clock back can we? And if we could, turn it back to when? there isn't an inch of the UK that hasn't been affected by human hand since the neolithic or before.
re 4 I know tomato growers down south who buy in small box hives to pollinate in their glass houses - they seem to work well. But there is a wider problem with the crash in the bee population - do you know whats happening there at the moment?
My instinct is to protect red squirrels but could we actually do it? And although it was artificially induced isn't it a question of natural selection now with greys out performing the reds.
Relocating people is a big one. Are you talking Uk or globally?
sheff, is the introduction of alien species into a habitat, and the subsequent decline/extinction of indigenous species, natural selection or a man-made problem? Do squirrels naturally fly across oceans?
ReplyDeleteDid the great auk evolve over millions of years just to be hunted to extinction in the 19th century to fill human bellies and make pillows? Maybe that is also a form of natural selection, but it doesn't seem that natural to me.
Fencewalker, the red squirrel is not gone yet, and may still be saved. And I'm pretty sure that it's got nothing to do with Victorian Christmases anyway.
Oh I know Reds aren't gone, but there's no natural way of reintroducing them to the rest of Britain - or is there?
ReplyDeleteThe Red/Chrissymas thing wasn't meant to be too rigorous, but it fits in with all that Victorian-derived wintervalia, doesn't it? I seem to remember them appearing in winter scenes in defiance of the grey's actual dominance. Still, I might be shaky on that too.
Incidentally, it just struck me that today there is a great 'save the whale' movement, but if anyone has read Moby Dick, they'll know that Melville was predicting the total extinction of whales way back in the 1840's. It seemed inconceivable then, but he wasn't far off. Perhaps if people had listened then, the problem would not be so acute today. Yet another man-made problem that can't be put down to natural selection, unless you believe that the function of homo sapiens in the ecosystem is to exterminate everything else.
ReplyDeleteInvasive species?
ReplyDeleteI would like to speak of one with which I am familiar. (Oh no! he's BNP!) No he's not, this is about spiders.
Segestria Florentina. For years I've seen these tunnel web spiders in the walls and fences of my garden. Indeed, on special occasions and with drink taken we would while away a summers eve by tickling this creature's trip wires with grass stems, screaming like girls when it rushed out.
One day I saw one of these spiders carrying something up the wall, it was a large garden spider, the legs had been snipped off for convenience and were still moving.
I felt, at the time that this was none of my business and that it was just one of natures charming ways. Like the way she had ensured that I was bald by the time I was thirty. I'm over it, by the way, but I still have the dream where I invent the undetectable comb over.
But I digress.
Last year there was a piece in the local paper describing how a local woman noticed a spider in the house and, being an unatural sort who had no fear of the creatures picked it up. It bit her.
Apparently this feels like a deep injection but the pain subsides after about six hours. The paper explained that these spiders came into the country in the 19th century.
The fact that the woman did the same thing two weeks later
can be explained by the fact that this is Chatham.
As the winters warm up Segestria is gradually moving north from where it first arrived on the south coast from from Southern Europe. I recently saw a piece on television where they were pointing them out on Waterloo Bridge.
I had literally hundreds of these things in a very small space. There were no garden spiders left. One imagines that when they went to anchor their webs to a wall or fence they were grabbed.
I am genuinly concerned about these bastards and the effect they may be having on our insect and arachnid population.
Just wikipediad that. Bloody horrible.
ReplyDeleteBeautifully written post btw.
scherfig
ReplyDeleteI think it started as a man made problem via the introduction and became natural selection with the greys outcompeting the reds. not 'natural' in the pristine sense I know.
I'd love to save red squirrels but don't know whether it can be done. Actually culling greys seems quite problematic if its to be done in a way thats safe for other species and humane.
There's a bloke up in Nth Yorks (Ithink - or maybe Northumbria) who'se made it it his lifes work to cull greys - had funding for it for some years too. But he was gloomy about the success rate. He trapped them then shot them I think. Very labour intensive.
We do seem to be a very destructive species - tending to favour short term benefits and to hell with the consequences - catching up with us now.
stoaty
ReplyDeleteI have a house and yard full of spiders - various sizes and shapes some really beautiful. One type in the yard is particularly elegant, a sort of mottled brown and biege. I don't want the bloody Segestria coming up here and scoffing them.
And no, I don't pick them up, not quite that fond of them. But then I'm not from Chattham.
PS: Agree with fencewalker - lovely post
God Dot I only dropped in for a blether - off the top of head
ReplyDelete1)
a) - in theory I say yes; in practice you have the Kenny Dalgleish Counter, 'Mibbies Aye, Mibbies Naw'. Easy to say, for example, that egg-eating rats be destroyed where, as introduced species, they are driving birds to extinction; bit more tricky to advocate shooting grey squirrels (didn't some genius propose a workable contraceptive solution? Is this possible Dot?)
b) - not unless you are a fascist or communist state. A devil's brew this one: and an agreed definition of 'natural' seems impossible
c) - perhaps nothing in nature is unnatural including us; we impinge on peregrines in their natural habitat, yet give them new cliff faces in the form of skyscrapers
2) - well we can't and the evidence from history are grim. Up until recently it was easy to condemn the wicked whites for wiping out the prairie buffalo; but in fact the encroaching Comanche had heavily reduced the herds before the first sharps rifles appeared. As the Terminator says in Terminator 2, we are born to kill
3) - the only way forward I would have thought.
4) - governments should and must pay - without the bees (as Einstein said) we enter a new Stone Age.
Phew!
And I echo the others - fab post Colin
ReplyDeleteColin - looked them up - they be scary beasts. But such an interesting post - and the fact they are taking all the other spiders - so sad but so true with many species. Examples are the grey squirrel as mentioned and now allegedly the deadly ladybirds that will kill all our own.
ReplyDeleteBut as to re introducing species it is difficult. Two local example are: bringing New Forest Ponies into Sherwood forest - spoke to a farmer who was not happy with this at all as he said they were not part of the natural eco system. But then again the other side of the coin is an experience I had a few months back. Driving back from the in-laws at Harrogate past Harewood and we saw these huge birds soaring in the sky. We knew they were something special because of the size of their wings. They came closer and we saw they were Red Kites.
Such impressive, beautiful creatures, they really made my day - hell my month.
So my heart wants to say yes - bring back native species, preserve native species - but then my head says that is just more man made messing around with the environment. It is so complex.
I just really hope that due to man made climate change and the like we do not get any really big, poisonous spiders here - i am such an arachnophobe.
Well I have absolutely shitloads more garden spiders setting up their gossamer sails each day in my garden; presumably out of an unusually exacerbated competition with eachother. Only the comfrey has kept the few bees around going, no wasps to sepak of, and not a single ladybird all summer
ReplyDeleteWTF is going on ???
Princesschipchops
ReplyDeleteRed kites have also become reintroduced in the (very rural) north of my county... flipping great !
Red Kites are fabulous birds - had them around where I lived in Wales. there is a little meat packing factory in Tregaron and you'd often see several pairs hanging out on the warm meaty thermals that the place created. They are quietly being introduced in other places and have seen them in Yorkshire too.
ReplyDeleteA romantic notion I know (and probably impractical) but would love to see wolves re-introduced to the Scottish Highlands.
Sheff,
ReplyDeleteRegarding wolves in Scotland, I can't help thinking about a tv prog I saw in which some white dude was explaining to some Indian villagers the importance of protecting tigers.
These poor sods were standing about, shuffling their bare feet, and thinking about how uncle Gabinder was eaten by one last week.
This don't answer Dot's questions but might give a flavour of the pleasure that comes when the conservationists get a success.
ReplyDeleteThe Red Kites released from the breeding programme at Harewood have come 40-50 miles across Yorkshire and into the Wolds to where I am.
Over the last few years I had only ever seen one over the field where I camp and then only the once - but about 7 miles away on the Wolds Way footpath I used to see a pair of them overhead quite regularly. Always a great pleasure.
But this year, only yesterday, I actually saw three kites riding the thermals over the very field in which I live. And then to top the day off last night an owl on my roof (barn I see him/her at a distance about four times a year.)
The birds were native to this part of Yorks but were wiped out years ago and retreated to Wales. Happily the reintroduction programme based at Harewood House seems thus far to be working well.
There is no real reason why they shouldn't do OK - the problem is likely to be gamekeepers who will kill anything that might offer even a remote threat, real or imagined, to the game birds. What they do with Magpies for example is quite vicious - but then so too is what foxes do to hens.
We hope that such a collection will stimulate the clustering of ideas which can inform philosiphies of being and action,and
ReplyDeletewhich will generate ecological responsibility in us.Nothing less than such an ecological commitment will preserve other
creatures,our earth,and ourselves.
Paul Sheperd/Daniel McKinley, conclusion of preface to "the Subversive Science"
It is pretty obvious that industrialization is not of itself a panacea for man's woes, sinceit tends to create a s many problems as
it solves. One by-product of the industrial age has been has beeen a considerable fouling of the human enviroment. Another is
the rapid explotaton and expendiure of cheap resources. A third is the development of critical social problems among the urbanized masses. The happiness and welfare of an industrial population is not measured by the gross national product .There may even be an inverse relationship. The thoughtful evaluation of this dilemma is purpose of the present book .
Editors Foreword
copyrightt 1969
The Subversive Science Essays toward an ecology of man
Some of you may know I’m a conservation biologist/ecologist,
actually i did not know that
and as a profession we’re trying to answer some tough questions at the moment
well actually you have been wrestling with them for quite a while 1969>2009= 40
and sometimes I think we’re all too much in the same mindset and need a fresh perspective
to see the future start with the past,,if you took a good look at the variety of predictions that have now had 40 yrs to mature
there might be a whole lot of new perspectives suggested,, i suggest the book referenced is very broad in scope and very stimulating. while it is forty years old it was a university text book in the US and would probably be easy to track down or you are welcome to my copy. it was written during the great upswelling of hippy conciousness,,before ecological scientists were seen as mainstream and not commie pinko treehugging lovein flowerpower poofdaas
my own views are not much use,, i tend to see everything of this kind of moral philosophical interogation as an extension of the truth /trust equation,, and i can never commit much to text without becoming incoherent,,i am good at graffitti but hopeless at portraits,,
obviously the natural enviroment changed dramatically 450 yrs ago (whatever) when long distance sea voyages became the new vector for dissemination,,or more accurately infection,, of virgin (by dint of isolation) enviroments,, man has tried many many ecological inteventions and none nada zip zilch have worked out as planned,,in the current climate of competition and lip service politics i dont see much hope for changing that success rate.
i am working on the insult(s) but lipstick on a pig is stuck in my forebrain,,
hey look a wall for graffitti
ReplyDeletev1) How much should we be trying to “turn back the clock” with conservation?
as per last post can not be done
Preventing further damage is somewhat less controversial (with some exceptions) but should we be:
a) Removing invasive species, (e.g. grey squirrels) even if this means culling them?
yes,,how you gonna deal with cane toads ? mussels
constrictor snakes,,etc etc culling squirrels is possible but for many (the majority) of the issues the option is irrelevant,,its not possible to go back from here,,
b) Relocating people to create/restore natural areas?
as per last post,, needs truth and trust to be successful,,said qualities in short supply
c) Destroying “unnatural” habitats to recreate “pristine” ones
temporal perspective,,eg cuba 1500 vs cuba 2000 non question (for me ,, :)
2) How can “we” (the west/developed world etc.) possibly expect/ask/force “them” (developing countries) to protect their
biodiversity when we’ve ballsed ours up so spectacularly?!
we can not "force them" its a pipedream,, a nonsequiteur,,it is not possible to "force people",, it looks superficially (a temporal perspective) as if it is possible but its no different from any other ecological intervention and always results in unintended consequences
its only ballsed up because there is "us/them" in the first place ,, and we have ballsed up theirs just as much if not more already,,
perhaps we can educate them,, if they can be persuaded our words are true,, and we can be trusted,,
More specifically if we do, how do we go about it?
speak the truth try to help dont be greedy
3) Should “nature” earn its keep? For example sustainable hunting of African wildlife, where the revenue is ploughed back into conservation.
no,,no,,no,, all the funds charged/recieved come from wall street/hollywood/bankers ,,they are phoney playmoney on the ecology game board
4) By the same token should we be “paying for ecosystem services”: a good example of this is pollinators, should farmers be
paying towards the maintenance of bee populations that pollinate their crops (whether wild or “beekeepered”)
no they should not pay for wild and they already pay for domesticated,, the issue with bees is very very serious,,
no matter what the mechanism of ecological intervention the bee is severely threatened,,so much so that it is an issue far
bigger than merely "the farmers",,my park was absolutely devoid of clover bees this year,,a dramatic change from only 5 years,, the bee is a an iceberg,,and we all sail on the titanic,,
i have a mexican friend who eats bees,, ,,hmm
Hi All,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interest, unfortunately my internet packed up last night and I arrived at work this morning to find two urgent things (electronically) dumped on my desk that I have to deal with now, but I'll try to find time at lunchtime to compose a response!
Dot
Right, found a bit of time. Taking things in order:
ReplyDelete1) "Turning back the clock" is a case of picking your battles, yes some fights (e.g. grey squirrels) seem to have been lost, but others may be winnable, the big question is which ones? Several of you have picked up on the idea of reintroductions, something I forgot to mention. Sheff brought up the topic of wolves: I'd love to see them back too, but how far back do you go?
a) Re: invasives, I'm pleased how much you lot know, (especially stoaty, agree, brilliant post) but as 3p4 mentions how on earth do we deal with all of them? If we don't what do we do?!?
b) Relocating people, it's being done, generally with carrots not sticks, but it is, as the different responses here show, highly controversial.
c)As has been mentioned elsewhere, particularly in the west, the big question is "what is natural?"
For 2 and 3 I'd like to address 3p4's comments:
2) Agree entirely, brilliant way of putting it.
3) Disagree entirely (although I didn't used to) What's wrong with their money, if it's the only source? (and sometimes it is).
4) Bees were just an example, but glad to see you running with it, there seems to be some question of who should pay (lets assume we need to do something). Farmers vs. government, well looks like we're back to politics.........
One final thing, many of you brought up iconic species (kites, wolves etc.) anyone any ideas on getting people interested in less iconic, but perhaps more vital species (ants, bees etc.)
Cheers,
Dot
I feel the key is 'What is natural?' After all we too are part of the Biosphere although our ability to change our environment to suit us (as opposed to evolving to suit a changing environment) is in fact one of the problems.
ReplyDeleteThe other problem as I see it is the view most people have of our species as being above as opposed to being part of nature, causing us to dominate rather than co-operate with what we tend to call 'the natural world' (as if it was something apart from us).
I think this has to change, but the dominant world view is a million miles from this. How bad has it got to get before we realise that we depend on the natural world as much as any other species?
Dot there's a Cif article in this.
3) Disagree entirely (although I didn't used to) What's wrong with their money, if it's the only source? (and sometimes it is).
ReplyDeleteits entirely fake,,money represents stored effort
the only useful effort produces food or shelter,,
bling bling people produce nothing,,
i said earlier i am not good at portraits and one is required to explain myself any further on this subject,,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I feel the key is 'What is natural?' After all we too are part of the Biosphere although our ability to change our environment to suit us (as opposed to evolving to suit a changing environment) is in fact one of the problems
"i used to think my brain was the most wonderful organ in my body,,then i realised who was saying this" emo phillips
hope that makes sense
Hi anne,
ReplyDeleteYou're right (as usual) but I think you've only got half the story: the flip side of the "humans are part of nature" argument is "therefore everything we do is natural and we needn't worry about it" (obviously false). We are unique: in being able to see our long-term effect on the environment and adjust accordingly. We need to realise we need that adjustment and act accordingly. However, the two problems are: 1) what do we want/need and 2) how do we get there?
An interesting aside, one of my lecturers at undergraduate once asked us which species had the greatest effect on other species. When someone (not me) raised their hand and said "humans" it was like that buzzer that goes off on QI. Actually his answer was a species of marine algae: apparently without their photosynthesis there would not be enough oxygen in the atmosphere for most other species.........
As for going to CIF with this, sorry not me: I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let me go above the line anonymously, and breaking anonymity would mean all sorts of issues with my employers (reasonable issues: I'd be seen as speaking on their behalf, when I'm not)
3p4,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I don't understand, it sounds like you're NOT saying "their money is so tainted I'd rather let the lions die out" but I can't see another explanation?
dot,
ReplyDeleteWe also have rana ridibunda locally. And as that family eat anything live they can get down it's bad news for some.
stoaty,
ReplyDeleteOut of interest, where do you get your info from?
On the subject of invasives, I've been merrily pulling up and destroying Impatiens glandulifera (Himalayan balsam) all summer (not part of my job but a bit of fun!). It occurred to me: it would make a great outlet for vandals: teaching them to ID invasive plants and have fun destroying them!
Hi Dot
ReplyDelete"... I think you've only got half the story: the flip side of the "humans are part of nature" argument is "therefore everything we do is natural and we needn't worry about it" (obviously false)."
I think that the damage we do is down to our view of ourselves as "above nature" not part of it.
In one sense everything we do is natural in the sense that our consciousness and ability to re-shape the world is the product of evolution. But the way those abilities evolved at first a survival characteristic is now clearly deleterious. I really do think its a case of 'adapt or die'. Unlike other species we have conscious control over this we can decide to behave differently. I fear that the change in mindset is necessary before we can do this and I don't see it coming.
We share this planet with all the other otganisms on it and we are interdependant with them. We can't even share it amicably with each other.
Sorry to be negative but the change is urgent and we are not even beginning to tackle it.
anne,
ReplyDeletepretty much agree with you, including that it's negative (no need to apologise!).
This thread is an attempt at conciousness arousal, with a few of the more difficult issues (human wildlife conflict) thrown in as sometimes the difficult stuff gets glossed over/forgotten.
dot,
ReplyDeleteSeen then in Rainham marshes. Thought they were bullfrogs and reported them. Took photo and it was identified as Laughing frog. (great name) They were introduced down south in the last century and they are working their way up the coast. Bigger than native frogs.
I'm inclined to mooch about looking at stuff.
Dot,
ReplyDeleteParticularly fond of snakes. Used to catch them when I was a kid in S.A. Now I just photograph the occasional adder.
dot
ReplyDeletei am saying their money is inherently and indivisibly connected to the same forces that are destroying the lions,, the great white hunters are destroying the lions by their actions on wall street,,for them to go on safari
and thereby return some of the "money" (meaningless term for these subjects)is using the puss to treat the wound,, (sorry for the image,,)
1) what do we want/need and 2) how do we get there?
ReplyDelete1 morality and personal responsibilty,,it is my fault,, i am part of the problem,,
2 speak the truth try to help dont be greedy
once i read your specific reference to human/wildlife conflict i realised i had been talking somewhat off subject for you initially and was focused on the general abuse of the planet,,oops
ReplyDeleteDot - very interesting questions and I'm going to try to answer them before looking at other people's responses so as not be biased by what I read: many around here sway my opinions because they're so meerkatting clever. So first the initial, uninformed reaction.
ReplyDelete1a: I genuinely don't know the answer to this. I hate the thought of culling but understand why it may be necessary. So I suppose yes, if it can't be managed another way.
1b: Definitely yes, especially if it can be managed in order to give the relocated people an improvement in their lives. (Compulsory relocation is a bit hard, but if you make it attractive enough....)
Meanwhile the govt here is trying to build thousands of houses on greenbelt land while brownfield sites nearby are lying empty.
1c: Might need a bit of illumination on what you mean by this. Is it like the RSPB and pine forests vs. moorland, or is there more to it?
2: We don't seem to have a problem with hypocrisy when it comes to anything else, so I don't see why the environment should be any different. ;-) But again, an incentive needs to be offered.
3: Sounds like a sound plan wherever practicable. I'm one of those animal-loves who absolutely hates the idea of killing anything, but as I said above, can see the need where things are out of balance.
Need to ensure that species are tracked to make sure too many of one are not being slaughtered. Wasn't there an article in the Graun or Obs the other day about disappearing grizzlies?
4: Hm, not sure farmers should be made to pay necessarily. No doubt they're mostly pretty aware of the importance of pollination. I'd prefer a system where seriously rich bastards had to pay - perhaps those who own second homes in rural locations? The local squire, like in old days?
All right, that's my quick take and I'll now read the other thoughts that will probably put mine to shame.
Dot
ReplyDeleteit would make a great outlet for vandals: teaching them to ID invasive plants and have fun destroying them!
Great idea - d'you think I could get them to go after my bindweed?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete