Not so "native"
- From: amacmil304@xxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:14 +0000
Not so "native"
One of the key criteria for determining if a species is "native" is
that it should have evolved with all other species within its own
environment and not have been introduced or assisted by man to arrive
at what is regarded as its natural location. In short, it should have
got to where it is by its own efforts and evolved naturally.
However, there is a basic problem with this. The word "species" is
only a descriptive term within a man-made classification system, so it
is ridiculous to latch the adjective "native" onto a classification,
when in the real world it should relate to actual animals that have
been born and bred in a location to which their native standing
rightfully applies.
If it is important to conservationists that a species evolves
naturally in Britain to earn its "native species" status here, then it
should be equally important that the same species evolving in a
different natural environment abroad, should not be regarded as
"native" to this country.
So it is completely fallacious to claim just because a "species"
exists in other parts of the world as well as in Britain, that
overseas animals can be regarded as "native" if "reintroduced" to this
country. Indeed, the word "reintroduced" compounds the fallacy by
implying they were "introduced" previously - which in conservation
speak would have made them "aliens".
An example of this is the red squirrel, which has a range stretching
from Northern Europe to China. However, it takes an enormous stretch
of one's imagination to regard red squirrels anywhere from here to
China, as being native to one particular location. These animals have
evolved within a wide range of climatic and environmental conditions
and most certainly been affected by their association with different
flora and fauna encountered across the part of the range they inhabit.
To argue that these influences are not important is to argue against
the whole concept of "native species".
The current population of red squirrels in the UK has been largely
introduced (reintroduced?) from various parts of Europe, following
their virtual extermination by those with forestry interests who
regarded them as "tree rats" that damaged trees - a term now being
used, just as unfairly, to demonise grey squirrels in the eyes of the
general public.
Both populations of squirrels, red and grey, have been introduced to
this country and there is no conclusive evidence that even the earlier
red squirrels evolved here continuously from the time of the land
bridge to Europe around 10,000 years ago.
Conservationists claiming animals including birds "reintroduced" to
this country are "native" because the species existed here in the past
are deceiving the public.
Truth is, most animals including birds being introduced or protected
by so-called conservationists and government agencies are being
exploited for their economic value to tourism - which in itself is one
of the most damaging activities of our time and contributes to the
destruction of the natural environment they claim to protect.
Grey squirrels that are being slaughtered in their thousands to
"protect" reds are victims of an agenda of greed and falsehoods.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: As fake as a £9 note!
- Next by Date: Re: A hypothesis about marking
- Previous by thread: As fake as a £9 note!
- Next by thread: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
