All introduced species should be eliminated...including the 'attractive'
ones.
As for your argument about aborigines, well if you want to get technical,
they island hopped here from Asia approx 50,000 years ago. If that is
irrelevant, then you need to realise that white man is another race of the
same species, not another species in itself. Therefore, white man is an
introduced race, not species.
I will eagerly kill blackbird eggs and anything else to do with introduced
animals.
I get sick and tired of such 'intellectual' statements from people, so as to
ease their conscience and absolve themselves of having to do anything at
all.
Uroo, Nigel Sterpin
email:
-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence and Leanne Knight <>
To: Harry Clarke <>
Cc: <>
Date: Wednesday, 2 June 1999 00:36
Subject: Re: birding-aus Ornithological Racism
>Harry Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Is dislike of sparrows, starlings and mynas an example of speciest
racism?
>> Is a House sparrow less worthy of survival opportunity in Australia than
a
>> Kookaburra? Why? Are those who disapprove of such species the Pauline
>> Hansons of the ornithological world? Where are the ornithological
>> multiculturalists? Are we more approving of greenfinches and goldfinches
>> (than of starlings or blackbirds) because of their colour?
>>
>> Should we allow human migrants into Australia only if they agree to breed
>> more slowly than original resident Australians (=aboriginees) and if they
>> promise not to occupy niche habitats in Toorak or Double Bay? If removed
>> from their terrorist 'predators' they should be required to promise not
to
>> devour us, steal our partners or top VCE or HSC exams?
>>
>> Yeah, I don't like House sparrows as much as Kookaburras but I still do
not
>> have the conviction to destroy blackbird nests that occur in profusion in
>> my backyard. Nor will I prick their eggs. I am a confused
>> internationalist. My confusion is somewhat related to the following quote
>> from James Kohen's book on aboriginees and the Australian environment.
>>
>> "When we talk about conservation of the Australian environment, what are
we
>> really talking about? Do we mean conserving the environment as it was in
>> 1788 - an environment which was created as the result of interaction with
>> Aboriginal people - or do we mean conserving the environment as it
develops
>> in the absence of regular, routine, low-intensity burning; or do we mean
>> conserving it in the absence of the dingo; or in the absence of foxes or
>> feral cats; or in the absence of the rabbit, the goat, the pig, the camel
>> and the donkey; or do we mean conserving it without any human impact
>> whatsoever - by excluding people altogether from National Parks?" (Kohen
>> (1995, p. 128)).
>>
>> I dunno.
>>
>> Harry Clarke
>>
>
>So Harry, would you welcome zebra mussels, cane toads, prickly pears and
>the other things which destroy our endemic biodiversity? [these are the
>equivalent of landing hordes of rampaging Mongols/Huns/Vikings in your
>backyard].
>
>Managing the Australian environment is a complicated business, but
>ferals are low lives as far as I am concerned and don't qualify for
>Australian citizenship. The interesting thing about we humans is the
>damage we cause by translocating species - the wonders of tourism and
>free trade etc.
>
>Just remember, the Aborigines didn't translocate hundreds of species to
>Australia every year the way we are.
>
>Regards, Laurie.
>To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
>
>Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
>quotes)
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
quotes)
|
