Guest guest Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 >Regarding Jenks, there is a difference between vermin and feral >animals, since animals considered to be vermin may be indigenous to >a place Very often, however, they are not--or are not accepted as such, like mute swans and wild horses in the U.S. Both are greatly persecuted, despite fossil evidence that mute swans have always existed in North America, and despite indications that while horses may have been very briefly extirpated during the most recent Ice Age, some wild horse bands may also have survived in what is now northern Alberta. The readiness of foes of " vermin " to label them " feral " as well is indicative of the mentality that drives the pogroms. Whomever a power-holder wishes to exterminate is labeled " alien, " regardless of how long Jews have been in Europe, Armenians in Turkey, or Africans in Darfur, and regardless of the role that the " aliens " play in shaping the ecology, cultural or biological. >It is indisputable that feral animals can have an adverse effect on >indigenous animals and ecosystems and can be instrumental in wiping >out indigenous species and this has happened in many cases. This is not only not " indisputable " ; it is an insidious fiction, a Big Lie based originally on poor observation of cause and effect, and perpetuated ever since by two categories of liar: # Those for whom it is easier or more economically advantageous to blame a scapegoat than to change a way of doing business; # Practitioners of " ecologism, " a quasi-religion masquerading as science-based, but actually owing almost nothing to scientific principle. Gents like the entomologist E.O. Wilson are among the high priests of ecologism. Wilson in particular will some day be viewed in very much the same light as William Jennings Bryan, who prosecuted John T. Scopes in 1925 for teaching evolution. Despite Wilson's pretense to advancing scientific understanding, what he has actually done for the past 20 years is attempt to argue against evolution, with great cultural influence, but persuasive success amid a conservative climate is not to be confused with knowing what he is talking about. Ecologism holds as an article of faith that there is such a thing as " native " biodiversity, independent of actual biodiversity, and that only " native " biodiversity is good, while everything else is an alien invader. If one traces this idea back, it is easily recognizable as a 20th century adaptation of medieval ideas about " natural order. " Worship of " natural order " was among the central themes of the literary, philosophical, artistic, and musical movements known as Teutonic Naturism and Romanticism, which originated in response to the environmental transformations wrought by the industrial revolution. Only after about 150 years of creative ferment did Teutonic Naturism begin to intoxicate scientists, and when it did, the intoxication came chiefly through funding granted by foundations and NGOs endowed by non-scientists imbued with Teutonic Naturist ideas--most of whom had no notion where their ideas came from. Of particular note in this regard are 34 years of persistent misuse of the U.S. Endangered Species Act as a litigative tool, not to preserve authentic critical habitat so much as to preserve " sacred groves " and scenic landscapes that are precious to practitioners of ecologism, independent of ecological importance. Teutonic Naturism predated Charles Darwin by at least two full generations. It is therefore no surprise that arguments for " native " vs. " non-native " biodiversity are devoid of any understanding of the importance of species migration, competition, and succession in driving evolution--and of any understanding that extinction is part of the process, although in truth extinction per se very rarely occurs. One must go back 60 million years to find the most recent authentic wave of extinctions, and even then, it is increasingly apparent that many of the " extinct " orders of animal are still with us, in adaptive remnants. We still have the therapod dinosaurs; they are called birds. We still have the mosasaurs; they are called snakes. What really happens in species successions, other than on very small islands, is that when the habitat changes, usually due to climatic change, the native species lose their competitive edge against immigrants who come from somewhere with a climate more like that of the altered climate of their new location. The native species have a more difficult time surviving, and tend to retreat to the most favorable part of their range. The non-native species then move into the vacated space. Practitioners of ecologism like to use the term " invasive species. " It means " adaptive species, " and also signifies that the people who use it have not studied their military history well enough to understand their own metaphor. One of the great paradoxes of military invasion is that it seldom succeeds in lastingly holding or transforming the invaded territory. Only small territories (like islands) are often successfully invaded, but even England and Ireland are large enough to have resisted the effects of invasion for centuries, until the invaders and conquerors could be culturally distinguished only by their own efforts to maintain a distinction. The example of India is much more typical. The Muslim and British invaders eventually became relatively well assimilated, occupying particular habitat niches suited to them, e.g. butchering and building railways. The thriving native Hindu culture was only superficially transformed, even when the invaders were completely politically and militarily dominant. When Hindu culture has changed, it has mostly changed itself, evolving and adapting to economic opportunity. This is not a unique example. The Mohawk teacher Ray Fadden, one of the voices who inspired the American Indian Movement, used to enjoy pointing out to white visitors to his Six Nations Indian Museum in Onchiota, New York, that the descendants of European invaders live much more like the Native Americans they supposedly conquered than like their European forebears. Fadden pointed to our food, our mobility, our altered social and political structures, and dozens of other examples. He would go on for two hours, and was basically right on every point: the European invaders killed a lot of Native Americans, yet in the end adopted essentially a more technologically advanced version of the Native American culture. Apart from adapting to habitats that " native " species can no longer hold due to climatic change, " invasive " species have another role, in controlling each other. We see this time and again, wherever a " non-native " animal is eradicated by benighted nativists. Currently, for example, rabbits and rats are supposedly devastating Robbin Island, off Cape Town, South Africa, a year after all the feral cats were exterminated. This should have been no surprise, because feral cats were the major brake on rabbit and rat population growth. If & when the rats are exterminated, Robbin Island will also have a mouse population explosion, because rats are a major mouse nest predator. Take away the rats, and there will be no noteworthy mouse predator left on the island who can go into cracks and crevices that preclude entrance by winged creatures. >Killing or exterminating feral animals could be interpreted as >'environmental fascism' as the philopher Tom Regan puts it. The >question that arises in my mind is how to treat feral animals when >they are killing indigenous animals. Like every other animal and plant, feral are fulfilling their natural role--and whether humans caused their presence is irrelevant. Humans are a natural force, too. Nature created us, and one of our natural roles is accelerating evolution by vigorously augmenting the work of the winds and waves and continental drift in moving species around, to give more species more opportunity to fill vacant niches and evolve into new roles. The notion that humans are apart from nature and are somehow unnaturally transforming the earth is, again, medieval theology. This idea goes back to the doctrine of " original sin, " and probably to poor potty training. It has nothing to do with an authentic understanding of nature and ecology. There are many good human reasons to want to preserve and protect habitat and rare species, but these should clearly be understood as human reasons, not as " respect for nature, " and not as obedience to natural principles. To nature, we are merely vessels for x-number of parasites & other organisms needing transport from here to there, as well as machines for manufacturing & distributing fertilizer, and our major contribution to environmental ecology has been exponentially increasing the biodiversity of almost everywhere we go--if " non-native " species are counted. Only if " non-native " species are excluded is it possible to argue that humans and feral animals are in any way harming biodiversity. Humans are, to be sure, gravely endangering the survival of much " charismatic megafauna, " both on land and at sea. But we have also successfully introduced or reintroduced much " charismatic megafauna " to new habitats, if we recognized cows, horses, etc. in their ecological roles, and the notion that we have done net harm even in this area is based upon assigning values to X animal over Y animal that nature does not consider. Nature merely considers whether X animal or Y animal can survive under the existing habitat conditions, or needs to evolve into something else that can. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 > > > > >It is indisputable that feral animals can have an adverse effect on >indigenous animals and ecosystems and can be instrumental in wiping >out indigenous species and this has happened in many cases. This is not only not " indisputable " ; it is an insidious fiction, a Big Lie based originally on poor observation of cause and effect, and perpetuated ever since by two categories of liar: # Those for whom it is easier or more economically advantageous to blame a scapegoat than to change a way of doing business; # Practitioners of " ecologism, " a quasi-religion masquerading as science-based, but actually owing almost nothing to scientific principle. Gents like the entomologist E.O. Wilson are among the high priests of ecologism. Wilson in particular will some day be viewed in very much the same light as William Jennings Bryan, who prosecuted John T. Scopes in 1925 for teaching evolution. Despite Wilson's pretense to advancing scientific understanding, what he has actually done for the past 20 years is attempt to argue against evolution, with great cultural influence, but persuasive success amid a conservative climate is not to be confused with knowing what he is talking about. Ecologism holds as an article of faith that there is such a thing as " native " biodiversity, independent of actual biodiversity, and that only " native " biodiversity is good, while eve What really happens in species successions, other than on very small islands, is that when the habitat changes, usually due to climatic change, the native species lose their competitive edge against immigrants who come from somewhere with a climate more like that of the altered climate of their new location. Only small territories (like islands) are often successfully invaded, but even England and Ireland are large enough to have resisted. (This is a most intriguing discussion since it has relevance in the Asian context, and I will endeavour to place my concerns in order : There are examples of animals, principally island species, that have been driven to extinction due to introduced species. I am citing the case of some snail species endangered by feral species and I have observed them at close quarters in captivity: Partula Snails of several Pacific Islands : http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/pi180.htm ** <http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/pi180f01.htm> Critics sometimes point out correctly that conservation biologists have little direct, unambiguous scientific evidence implicating invasive nonindigenous species in the extinction of native species. Indeed, long-term intensive studies of native island species are rare, and most damage done by invasive nonindigenous species is observed sporadically, providing only anecdotal evidence. The extinction of land snails of the genus *Partula* in French Polynesia provides a sad but noteworthy exception to this circumstance. *Partula* snails on the island of Moorea had been studied intensively by biologists in the 1920's through 1930's, and again in the 1960's through 1970's to examine patterns of genetic variation and formation of new species (Johnson et al. 1977). The Euglandina snail (Fig. 1), a predatory species native to Florida and Central America, was introduced purposely by two government agencies in 1977 to one location on the island of Moorea. The species was intended to act as a biological control (for which it proved ineffective) for the giant African snail, which became established on Moorea about 1970. Moorea is a small island with a diameter of about 12 kilometers and a maximum elevation of 1,207 meters. After 1980 the invading snail was advancing its distribution 1.2 kilometers per year. Clarke et al. (1984) provided precise status and trends information and predicted the extinction of all 14 taxa of *Partula *snails on Moorea by 1986-1987 (Fig. 2); populations of these snails were removed from the wild for captive breeding. The last wild population of *Partula* snails was seen in November 1986. An expedition to the highest ridgetops in June-July 1987 failed to find a single individual *Partula* snail (Murray et al. 1988). There is another example, the St Helena Earwig, that has been reported as extinct due to habitat destruction by goats in St Helena. A description of St Helena has this to say: http://www.btinternet.com/~sa_sa/st_helena/st_helena_geography.html The coastline of St Helena is spectacular, with cliffs up to 300 m high. They are relatively barren, with low scrub and cactus. These forbidding cliffs, coupled with an unpredictable Atlantic swell (worse on the south side of the island) mean that there are very few landing places. As one heads inland, the terrain becomes vegetated: sadly, there are still large tracts of land which were devastated by the goats and pigs brought in by early settlers. These animals ran wild and multiplied, and despite an attempt to exterminate the goats in 1731, they soon recovered and continued to ravage the vegetation. http://www.earwigs-online.de/Lherculeana/Lherculeana.html With the increasing interest in nature, conservation and the special characters of island fauna (e.g. " How did all the animals get there when the island was never connected to the mainland? " etc.) scientists tried to find it again. Two expeditions were conducted by Paul Pearce-Kelly from the London Zoo in 1988 and 1993, however, they failed to find any trace of this large species; also Howard Mendel failed to find any trace in 2006 (pers. comm.). Naturally, sometimes you miss species even if you are looking for them. However, this species is very large and so are the nymphs which live in the same habitat. In addition, there are reports that you can sometimes find the very well sclerotised cerci as (sub-)fossils (Zeuner 1962). This seems to have been the case in 1995 (Ashmole & Ashmole 2004) but these authors were unable to find specimens in 2000 and 2003 (Ashmole & Ashmole 2004). Alas, neither nymphs nor fossil cerci where found in recent years. According to Ashmole & Ashmole (2000), *Labidura herculeana* (Fabricius, 1798) could be extinct due to the clearing of the Gumwood forest where the species lived (in the area of Horse Point), another cause of the alleged extinction could have been the competition with the introduced centipede *Scolopendra morsitans.* One of Jane Goodall's favourite conservation stories is that of the Chatham Island Black Robin, a bird whose survival is threatened by feral animals: Dr. Jane Goodall has met many inspiring conservationists. One such man is Don Merton, who saved the black robin in New Zealand. When he began his breeding program, there were only five of these little birds in existence. Of this group, only one female and one male were fertile. Now there are 250 black robins. Of course, they are all genetically identical, but they have been placed on different islands so that the outbreak of disease will not destroy them all. The species is still endangered<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species>, but now numbers around 250 individuals in a single population on tiny Little Mangere Island <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Mangere_Island>. Ongoing restoration of habitat and eradication of introduced predators is being undertaken so that the population of this and other endangered Chatham endemics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_%28ecology%29> can be spread to several populations, decreasing the risk of extinction by natural disasters or similar stochastic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic>events. These are only some examples, I could give many more. Now the question is, in these cases, where the existence of a few individuals of a rare species is threatened by the existence of many individuals of a thriving species, if one were to intervene, which one would one fall for? There are several considerations, one of them being rarity and the other one being sentience, for example, is it right to kill a mammal to save an insect when a mammal is higher up the evolutionary ladder? There is also the other argument of not intervening at all, and let nature take its own course and that may mean the extinction of the endangered species due to the activities of the introduced species and the above examples are illustrations. A powerful case could be made for not intervening at all, the hands off approach to nature conservation. But a case could also be made for intervention. Regarding Teutonic Naturism and Edward Wilson. Edward Wilson is considered to be among the leading researchers of island biogeography and he has conducted experiments termed as 'defaunation' whereby all animals of an island were purposefully killed to study the effects of immigration of animals. (*The Theory of Island Biogeography*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Island_Biogeography>, 1967 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967>, Princeton University Press (2001 reprint), ISBN 0-691-08836-5<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources & isbn\ =0691088365>, with Robert H. MacArthur ) He has come under attack from leftists on several occasions, a trenchant critic being Richard Lewontin, who has challenged his ideas in the book, 'The Doctrine of the DNA : Biology as Ideology.' He has had cold water poured on him during a speech with protesters chanting, " Hey Wilson, you are all wet! " He has addressed the major approaches to nature conservation, including Teutonic Naturism, in his books, 'Consilience' and 'The Future of Life'. The American journalist Tom Wolfe has described him as 'the new Darwin' so the allegation of Wilson working against evolutionary theory can be challenged. Despite his controversial ideas, Wilson has expressed interest in animal rights, as evident in his very positive review of 'Rattling the Cage' written by animal rights lawyer Steven Wise. There is no doubt that he is an intellectual giant of our age, a man who has done much to forward the cause of biodiversity preservation. In the Indian context, the problems of feral species have not been all that pronounced. There are feral populations of Jave Sparrows whose effects on indigenous bird populations are unknown or little studied. There are feral horses in Dibru Saikhowa National Park in Assam. These horses escaped the Army camps of World War-II, while others were left loose during the earthquake there in 1950. These animals are third and fourth generation individuals of those tamed army horses. There are feral populations of elephants and deer in the Andamans and there have been suggestions that they are having a negative impact on the ecosystem * * : *http://www.uta.edu/faculty/shreyas/WWF.pdf*<http://www.uta.edu/faculty/shreyas/\ WWF.pdf> Therefore in my opinion, concerns about the effect of feral animals on indigenous animals are valid and relevant especially on isolated islands. The Andamans elephants surely deserve more study and research. Recent Activity - 6 New Members<aapn/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbHNydmNpBF9TAzk3\ MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI0Mjc2NzMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgyOTQ4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0\ aW1lAzExNzU2NTA2MDI-> Visit Your Group <aapn;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZ3Nkbm5sBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycEl\ kAzI0Mjc2NzMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgyOTQ4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTE3NTY1MDY\ wMg--> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 >There are examples of animals, principally island species, that have >been driven to extinction due to introduced species. And the first & most obvious aspect of each situation is that it has occurred on an island, which has a very limited array of species and habitat niches to begin with, and because it is very small, is susceptible to abrupt and complete habitat changes. Islands are by definition isolated cases. Practitioners of " ecologism, " i.e. the worship of " ecology " as opposed to understanding it, have for decades made a vigorous effort to extrapolate what happens on small islands to mainland habitats. The term " island habitat " is accordingly widely used to describe fragmented habitats. Occasionally this metaphor has utility, but more often it is misused, because on mainland these supposed islands tend to move, expand, change shape, connect with each other, and sometimes disappear, quite unlike authentic islands. >These are only some examples, I could give many more. Now the >question is, in these cases, where the existence of a few >individuals of a rare species is threatened by the existence of many >individuals of a thriving species, if one were to intervene, which >one would one fall for? This argument is mixing science with philosophy. Nature solves this problem through evolution: the thriving species thrives. The rare species either retreats to the portion of habitat it can hold, adapts to the challenge of change, or goes extinct. If it goes extinct, something else moves into the vacant habitat niche. Sometimes the something else will be an increasingly specialized adaptation from the thriving species. Of note here is that successful evolution relatively seldom proceeds from adaptation by rare species, who are usually also highly specialized species. Evolution is usually a matter of successful, abundant species finding opportunities to become more successful through more effective adaptation to wherever they are. >A powerful case could be made for not intervening at all, the hands >off approach to nature conservation. But a case could also be made >for intervention. That case, again, is a matter of imposing human values and philosophy over natural selection. To nature, philosophers are incubators of parasites and distributors of fertilizer, the same as the rest of us, except possibly more full of greenhouse gases. >Regarding Teutonic Naturism and Edward Wilson. Edward Wilson is >considered to be among the leading researchers of island >biogeography and he has conducted experiments termed as >'defaunation' whereby all animals of an island were purposefully >killed to study the effects of immigration of animals. ( ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Island_Biogeography>The >Theory of Island Biogeography, ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967>1967 , Princeton University Press >(2001 reprint), ><http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources & isbn=0691088365>\ ISBN >0-691-08836-5, with Robert H. MacArthur ) In other words, Wilson is a Teutonic Naturist to an extreme degree, whose philosophies and practices are not all that far removed from those of various other Teutonic Naturists who believed in purging " impure " elements. There is another way to describe a person who excessively studies a micro ecology and then tries to extrapolate his findings to the universe: having his head so far up where the sun doesn't shine that he thinks the world is dark. Wilson has done quite well for himself by repackaging familiar theological messages as " science, " quite in keeping with the socio-economic tempo of his times, and quite like some of the lefties of slightly earlier times like Paul Ehrlich, who likewise mixed science with the doctrine of Original Sin and the prophecy of an imminent apocalypse. Whether the ideology is " left " or " right " is really just a superficial detail. The common error is trying to interpret nature as a lawgiver, whose dictates support one's philosophical preferences. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.