Re: Conservation fraud?

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:55:10 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
<rjseago@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <dtn8p3p1anlkp83pthuji0sirm6odef6oi@xxxxxxx>,
<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> wrote:

It is defined in Wikipedia that a native species is: "a species that
normally lives and thrives in a particular ecosystem.

This is not the accepted worldwide definition of native.

Much as I like wikipedia, it is acknowledged that it is not always
correct, and even if it is today, anyone can change it tomorrow.

I accept that. So what is your definition?



This can include
any species that developed with the surrounding habitat, and can be
assisted by or affected by a new species."

It has also been argued on
this ng that the value of native species is that they have evolved
over thousands of years in a particular country and its ecosystem.

Unless I'm mistaken, that would seem to be the general description.

However, "species" is only a paper classification and it is not a
paper classification that is introduced, but individual animals.
What point is that supposed to make?
But many of the introduced so-called "native species" (or
re-introduced - does that mean they've been introduced more than
once?) have not evolved in this country but in different ecosystems.
Re-introduction is taken to mean an introduction of individuals of a
species which has become extinct.

So is the whole idea of introducing animals from abroad to replace
those that have become locally "extinct" no more than conservation
fraud?

No.

Why not?


Much effort is made to introduce from populations which are closest
genetically to the original ones. This is sometimes determined by DNA
profiles, and sometimes by known former populationm distributions.

If they're different in that way then they're obviously not "native".
But that wasn't the point I was making. If they haven't evolved with
the eco-system of the UK then they do not have the connection with
the UK past that is crucial to their make up as "native" to this
country.

I think this is another conservation scam; a bit like "ancient
woodlands" where so-called conservationists are trying to pass off
reproductions as genuine antiques.



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)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DNA and Information
    ... <snip because I prefer short posts restricted to a single point (even ... It uses the Shannon formula for measuring ... information content on species population size. ... that mean that each ecosystem contains information in a specified ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: a good person is a person who...
    ... evolves just as actual life did. ... The ecosystem is enormously complex ... the seeds of only one species of tree, a species which can no longer ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Language Oriented Programming
    ... There's a background rate of species extinction which I've seen quoted ... it's also part of what we mean by "ecosystem"; ... is a stable community of species, ... "When one module fails typically the whole ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Challenge: Humans are not at all the most "evolved" or "complex" speicies
    ... >> evolved of the species of life. ... it /does/ seem more reasonable to compare the fitness of different ... In particular, you could cover half a planet with ecosystem A, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: strawberries in a top box
    ... compared to Colin. ... I'd hope that you won't be needing one of them for a while.. ... The ecosystem on the other hand will be dramatically ... be different species, and we may not be one of them, but it'll be here. ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)