Re: EU money for conservation
- From: "BAC" <casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:21:53 +0100
"Malcolm" <Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:sh2uYEepbnMDFwAg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In article <1127378549.14312.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, BAC
> <casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >
> >"Malcolm" <Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:IH6HRjNbGlMDFwG+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> In article <gci3j1dsuu67ctq0ijj6mbiqkaccgotv6e@xxxxxxx>,
> >> amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
> >> >On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:52:29 +0100, Malcolm
> >> ><Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Snip.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>> >> The third project addresses the threats to breeding birds on
> >islands
> >> >>>> >> after predators have been accidentally introduced. With the
> >support of
> >> >>>> >> local people,
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >(All 14 of them!)
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> I thought it was 16! I can't imagine any of them not wanting to
get
> >rid
> >> >>>> of rats from the island, can you?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>No, although a report I read quoted one of the residents as saying
she
> >> >>>wasn't really aware of the presence of the rats, apart from
occasional
> >rat
> >> >>>droppings around the bins, which sounds like par for the course.
Even
> >with a
> >> >>>population of 16, that still works out at something approaching
£15,000
> >per
> >> >>>head to eradicate the rats. Pity it's not being paid to local
people,
> >IMO.
> >> >>>
> >> >>Hmm, perhaps you should read the following including the comments of
> >> >>another island resident:
> >> >>
> >> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1790403,00.html
> >> >>
> >> >>There's not much point in paying money to the locals if their tourist
> >> >>attraction is being destroyed.
> >> >
> >> >That's what it's all about. If the visitors were coming to see the
> >> >rats, the fake conservationists would be destroying the seabirds :-(
> >> >
> >> What a classic example of Macmillan logic, not to mention total
> >> ignorance. Why don't you think before you write your nonsense?
> >>
> >> I'm sure the people of Canna know more about their needs than you do
and
> >> have a more sensible view of what is and what isn't good for their
> >> island. Or is it your ambition to see the island become depopulated?
> >> Perhaps you should tell them that they must leave the rats alone and
> >> that they shouldn't let them be killed but instead put up with the
> >> infestation and allow their seabirds to disappear. Will you do that?
> >>
> >
> >Are you suggesting that this measure would not have been proposed and
> >implemented if Canna had been uninhabitated by humans?
>
> No of course not. Nor can I see how you reach that interpretation of
> what I wrote.
It seemed to me to be implied by the argument over the wishes of the
inhabitants, which are irrelevant to the main question.
>
> > I thought it was a
> >conservation initiative, a la Ailsa Craig, not a pest control initiative
for
> >the benefit of a few private individuals.
> >
> Of course. But it will benefit the islanders, too, doubly so. That was
> the point I was making and Angus was seemingly ignoring.
>
> >I suspect the 'support' of the local populace has been obtained as part
of
> >the standard MO of those who seek to carry out exterminations of local
> >populations of animals, as mentioned, for example, in the section headed
> >"Conditions for Eradication Success" in Clout and Veitch's preface to
> >'Turning the Tide', as referred to by yourself. Not as anything to do
with
> >motivation for the adoption of the procedure, but as something which is
> >desirable to achieve to help ensure its success.
> >
> If you were an inhabitant of a small island with a rat problem, wouldn't
> you welcome an initiative to rid the island of rats?
I would welcome an initiative to solve my rat problem, if I had one,
especially if it were 'free' to me. Just as I would here on the mainland.
But I would not welcome an ongoing total extermination initiative unrelated
to the scale of my rat problem unless I were convinced it were justified on
its own merits. If I thought it were merely being carried out as a 'muscle
flexing' excercise by a body of conservationists wishing to demonstrate
their commitment to the 'holy cause' of eradication of alien species, for
example, or to make use of an external funding opportunity, I certainly
wouldn't welcome it, personally.
It happens that the
> main aim was to save the seabird colonies, which itself is going to be a
> major benefit to the islanders, but if it simultaneously rids the
> islanders' houses and stores of rats, then I can't see there was much
> need to obtain support. The islanders can't lose. Angus seems to think
> it shouldn't happen because he apparently values the life of a rat
> (introduced to the island by man) the same as the life of a naturally
> occurring seabird. I suggest he goes to Canna and tells the inhabitants
> that instead of squeaking his disapproval from the sidelines, as usual.
>
Don't think there's much chance of that. Think of the waste of fuel :-)
.
- References:
- EU money for conservation
- From: Malcolm
- Re: EU money for conservation
- From: BAC
- Re: EU money for conservation
- From: BAC
- Re: EU money for conservation
- From: BAC
- EU money for conservation
- Prev by Date: Re: EU money for conservation
- Next by Date: Re: EU money for conservation
- Previous by thread: Re: EU money for conservation
- Next by thread: Re: EU money for conservation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
