... and one rule for another.
No, I am not talking about birders (although easily could be!), but the birds themselves. This wonderful, natural world in which we are lucky enough to inhabit with so many other wonderful (and not so wonderful - but that's only my opinion!) creatures, has been influenced so much by mankind's existence, that there is barely a place on the surface of this planet that hasn't been affected.
However, 'man' in its ultimate wisdom, now seems to have forgotten its place and the impact it has had. Some birds and mammals, now find themselves in the position of 'pests', although through no fault of there own. Introduced species, escapes and even some natural colonisers are now seen as detrimental to the English landscape. This is possibly rightly so, but why are they here? Did they have any choice? Is it right that these birds or mammals etc should be controlled. Surely, it is 'mans' initial intervention that brought them here in the first place, do we really have the right to now try and get rid of them?
This argument obviously applies to instances such as Ruddy Ducks and Grey Squirrels, but has personally be brought home to me recently with regard to a number of others. There has been discussions on the effect of Muntjacs on scrub breeding birds, but it wasn't long before Roe Deer were also being 'blamed'. Should 'we' wipe them all out? Whilst commenting recently about the age of the 'local' Harris Hawk, there was plenty of negative response, with one person suggesting it should be shot, as they think it is affecting the Marsh Harriers (although my observations are that some people are affecting them even more)! Should 'man' really be making these decisions?
Just today a birder with a dog walked closely passed a large group of Greylag Geese, with various ages of goslings and, of course, the geese quickly scattered away from where they were feeding. This birder claims that he makes decisions in the interest of the bird(')s welfare. What about the welfare of these geese? When challenged, his response was that, 'They should all be culled anyway' (to which my response of completely inappropriate, and for that I apologise). Is this an appropriate response from a 'sentient' being?
Many of these people profess to be atheists, but are seemingly putting (or at least suggesting) themselves in the position that they believe no being should have, the right to whether something lives or dies.
I realise that this is a rather simplistic view and that there are so many variables involved and maybe I am just being naive, but just felt that I wanted to say it (now for crucifixion by blog, probably with anonymity!)
Peace!
Contact: E-mail: dnorgate21@googlemail.com Mobile: 07749779149
Of course mankind is screwing up the planet and it's becoming one big Zoo but do you think we should leave our mistakes to reach whatever conclusion they may reach without further intervention ? Do we allow Mink to proliferate in Britain or cull them ? Do we remove Hedgehogs from the Western Isles or leave them there ? Do we leave Himalayan Balsam and Japanese Knotweed to proliferate ? Etc etc etc.
ReplyDeleteYou mention Deer. What do we do about Deer, introduced or otherwise, which proliferate and impact on other species because we have wiped out their predators ?
Nice rant but mankind cannot progress on rant alone. What's your solution to problematic introduced species ?
And where does this 'Many of these people profess to be Atheists' come from ? Have you conducted some sort of survey into the belief systems (or lack of), of people who support the control of problematical species or allow their dogs to worry Greylags (how do Theists rate and do Buddhists rate lower than Muslims and Christians etc), or are you trying to make some sort of religious point ?