Hi all,
A few people have mentioned now where "the line" should be drawn on what we
preserve - which is a fine discussion to have, but not particularly relevant
to the problem of a new feral species introduction. My "line" if you will
with ferals is that if we can act asap after a new species is detected, we
may very cheaply and easily keep it from becoming established. Imagine if
there were 1000 Canada Geese in many separate flocks. We could possibly
still do something about them, but how much more expensive and difficult
would that be than controlling 4? And at some point the cost of controlling
them would become prohibitive, even if we could do it. The cute and fluffy
argument worked to stop culls of Rainbow Lorikeets in Perth and now there
are too many. They are now likely to impact on Western Rosella and
Red-capped Parrot numbers as they spread from Perth into the surrounding
forests (which is happening as we speak).
Also people were asking what potential impact Canada Geese could have, I
believe the argument that eventually led to their demise was actually an
agricultural one. The geese could graze on shooting crops, and foul dams
meant for livestock. Either or both of those impacts would have a
measurable effect on our economy if they occurred. Maybe not the most
satisfying argument to have to make, but sometimes I guess you go with what
works.
And for the record, if I were king of the world, my line on conservation
wouldn't be based on species present at a date in history, but on conserving
and improving habitat. If you choose to conserve a species you conserve
that species. If you conserve a habitat, you do so much more.
Regards,
Chris
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
