Piano Found at top of Ben Nevis ( 3 days old )

[Sark79]

Although the grey Squirrel isn't a native species to the UK, it is here now so we should protect it.  I saw a feature on Landward ( yes it's me, I am the person that watches it ) about a Northern Island that had been overgrown by an invasive plant species that was preventing birds nesting. The bird population was falling or was expected to fall in the coming years.  They are now considering introducing rabbits to eat the plants and return a balance to the Island.

We are in a powerful position as humans and we can make important decisions that will have a positive and  negative impact on various species. In my opinion, because the grey population vastly outnumbers the red. We should re-home the remaining reds ( obviously not all of them.  But healthy breeding pairs. ) on some of the many Islands up north. This has been done for other species, why not the red squirrel.  For reasons good or bad, which ever way you look at it, without our intervention the greys are here to stay. We shouldn't stand in their path, but we should offer our help to the reds and repopulate a deserted Island that pocesses the required habitat for the reds.

Of course you may get some of the reds refusing to leave  " I have stayed here all my life, I built this nest with my own two paws. I worked my claws to the bone.  I am not moving "

[tikay]

In the 1930s, Australia had a major beetle problem.

The beetles were decimating the sugar cane crop in Queensland. The solution to the problem was to introduce the cane toad into the ecosystem. Cane toads love nothing more than to eat beetles all day long.

100 were brought over from Hawaii, in a big box full of toads. They were bred in captivity till they had around 3,000 toads. The motley crew of amphibious slimy beasts were let loose on the local beetle population. Problem solved.

Or was it? The plan went tits up. The cane toad can't jump high enough to eat the beetles that set up shop mostly in the upper stalks of sugar cane. They were a bit useless when it came to doing their job.

That's not to say the cane toads weren't successful. They ate everything else instead. Other insects, birds eggs and poor old (much cuter) native froggies. What's more, the cane toad is poisonous and they killed a heap of would be predators aswell.

So successful that they've bred all over Australia, and are wiping out rare species left right and centre in the 12th most bio-deverse nation on the planet. To make matters worse, they don't smell very nice. The Australian government is currently spending millions of dollars to try to eradicate the toad.


Red squirrels are much cuter than grey squirrels. Grey squirrels threaten red squirrels.

Plan A - Kill a whole bunch of grey squirrels and hope for the best.

Plan B - Let nature take it's course.

I know which one I would choose.

If, in 100 years time, we have to explain to our children why human beings are no longer the masters of the planet. That we are now the servant of the bees and wasps, we shall have to explain that it was all because some bright spark wanted to kill a heap of squirrels so that another bunch of squirrels might flourish.

A quite beautuiful Post by Tank, saying so well what I was trying to convey.

Leave Nature alone is the message.

[tikay]

Wow, that's an interesting way of looking at it.

Mankind is the only rational species on the planet so it is 'natural'

Taking down a rainforrest is practical for a rational species as they need the wood for something else, so it is nature at work...

"we need the wood for something else"......

You are not serious, are you Flushy? It's OK to destroy a rainforest because we need the wood?

[AdamM]

I have a controvercial opinion on conservation. IT'S POINTLESS! Billions upon billions of species have come and gone. species of insect become extinct everyday. if you scaled down the existence of life on the planet to 24 hours we've been here less than a second. Human Beings believing that they are the culmination of a master plan of a superior being and the guardians of selected fluffy animals is arrogant and sentimental respectively. I'm not saying our consciousness isn't amazing, and I'm against needless destruction but we can't (and shouldn't) save all the dying species.

Survival of the fittest is misinterpretted. The phrase was coined by the wwritten press at the time. it means Fittest in the sense of 'most appropriate' not strongest. Why are we more concerned by the extinction of the Panda than a species of spider? Obviously with the panda we (by which I mostly mean the Chinese) are partly responsible because a) we're in competition for space/ resources and b) some idiots believe in magical cures using bits of it.

why does the dolphin havce more rights than the Tuna, the horse more rights than the cow, the red squirrel more rights that the grey?

here's another can of worms.
I'm against fox hunting, but not for the foxes well being, Im happy for a farmer to shoot a fox, It's more because of what it represents in ourselves. entertaining ourselves by killing for sport. If we're in competition with the fox for resources it's natural for us to kill them off. only difference between us and other species is we feel guilty for it.

[jezza777]

I have a controvercial opinion on conservation. IT'S POINTLESS! Billions upon billions of species have come and gone. species of insect become extinct everyday. if you scaled down the existence of life on the planet to 24 hours we've been here less than a second. Human Beings believing that they are the culmination of a master plan of a superior being and the guardians of selected fluffy animals is arrogant and sentimental respectively. I'm not saying our consciousness isn't amazing, and I'm against needless destruction but we can't (and shouldn't) save all the dying species.

Survival of the fittest is misinterpretted. The phrase was coined by the wwritten press at the time. it means Fittest in the sense of 'most appropriate' not strongest. Why are we more concerned by the extinction of the Panda than a species of spider? Obviously with the panda we (by which I mostly mean the Chinese) are partly responsible because a) we're in competition for space/ resources and b) some idiots believe in magical cures using bits of it.

why does the dolphin havce more rights than the Tuna, the horse more rights than the cow, the red squirrel more rights that the grey?

here's another can of worms.
I'm against fox hunting, but not for the foxes well being, Im happy for a farmer to shoot a fox, It's more because of what it represents in ourselves. entertaining ourselves by killing for sport. If we're in competition with the fox for resources it's natural for us to kill them off. only difference between us and other species is we feel guilty for it.

[AdamM]

blimey, thanks

Im not expecting it to be a popular opinion

[Ginger]

Wow, what a thread to find on a poker forum!

On the subject of red squirrels, I believe everything in our power should be done to protect them.  The Isle of Wight thankfully has a large healthy population and the local council work hard to keep it that way.  Mans intervention is what puts many of these threatened species at risks in the first place, and as such we should be responsible for protecting as best we can.

Adam, no offence, but what an arrogant view to take!  Humans have the ability to help other species, we do so much damage to the planet that it is our responsibility to preserve whenever possible ( it’s called being Humane?) Yes, it’s impossible to save everything, which does not mean that we shouldn’t try to.  You refer to survival of the fittest actually meaning “most appropriate (funny enough, Hitler had the same view, but that is a whole new topic) who deems what is most appropriate?

We introduce a species to a habitat, or dramatically change animal’s surroundings, sit back and watch the results.  Many times it will have a damaging consequence on the natural habitants, do we leave the mistake and see who lives?  Or should we try to correct what we have done.

We have the ability to conserve, we should.

[Hairydude]

Wow, what a thread to find on a poker forum!

On the subject of red squirrels, I believe everything in our power should be done to protect them.  The Isle of Wight thankfully has a large healthy population and the local council work hard to keep it that way.  Mans intervention is what puts many of these threatened species at risks in the first place, and as such we should be responsible for protecting as best we can.

Adam, no offence, but what an arrogant view to take!  Humans have the ability to help other species, we do so much damage to the planet that it is our responsibility to preserve whenever possible ( it’s called being Humane?) Yes, it’s impossible to save everything, which does not mean that we shouldn’t try to.  You refer to survival of the fittest actually meaning “most appropriate (funny enough, Hitler had the same view, but that is a whole new topic) who deems what is most appropriate?

We introduce a species to a habitat, or dramatically change animal’s surroundings, sit back and watch the results.  Many times it will have a damaging consequence on the natural habitants, do we leave the mistake and see who lives?  Or should we try to correct what we have done.

We have the ability to conserve, we should.

 

[Trace]

http://www.formby-online.co.uk/community/redsquirrel.htm

A fantastic visit if you can get there!

They will feed out of your hands.

Then when fed up with the squirrels a short walk will take you over some
huge sand dunes and down onto an expanse of clean beautiful beach!

[totalise]

very well said Ginger. I agree with your post 100%

[tikay]

It's a fantastic & fascinating thread, & I'm proud that it's on blonde, & I hope it runs for a goodly while yet.

But it IS an emotive subject, & so please remember to keep it cool!

I confess to a great interest in this subject, alhough I am not at all sure what is right & wrong, & we can never get a definitive answer.

Anyone who has read Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" would be pretty much ashamed at the havoc that Man has wreaked on the animal, bird & plant population during the last century. Earth has existed for x billion years, but in just 100 years, "civilised" Man has destroyed more than one can possibly imagine.

It's a very sad thing. But I really don't now what's right & wrong here, & nor, I suspect, does anyone else.

If Man had left Nature alone in the first place, there would be no need for conservation! What a dilemma.

[marcro]

It's a fantastic & fascinating thread, & I'm proud that it's on blonde, & I hope it runs for a goodly while yet.

But it IS an emotive subject, & so please remember to keep it cool!

I confess to a great interest in this subject, alhough I am not at all sure what is right & wrong, & we can never get a definitive answer.

Anyone who has read Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" would be pretty much ashamed at the havoc that Man has wreaked on the animal, bird & plant population during the last century. Earth has existed for x billion years, but in just 100 years, "civilised" Man has destroyed more than one can possibly imagine.

It's a very sad thing. But I really don't now what's right & wrong here, & nor, I suspect, does anyone else.

If Man had left Nature alone in the first place, there would be no need for conservation! What a dilemma.

and if we keep ignoring the cause and effects of global warming all of this will become a moot point!

[matt674]

If Man had left Nature alone in the first place, there would be no need for conservation! What a dilemma.

YEAH!! This is my jungle and your not having it, so clear off - the lot of you!!!  

[tikay]

Ginger's Post throws an interesting light on this.

Essentially, she says that we need to conserve because we interfered in the first place. Too right. But where does "interfering" start & finish? Is that not what caused some of the probs in the first place?

That God person has his or her hands full with us lot. I wonder of he/she ever regrets than Man exists, & that the Planet would have been better off without us?

[RED-DOG]

It's a fantastic & fascinating thread, & I'm proud that it's on blonde, & I hope it runs for a goodly while yet.

But it IS an emotive subject, & so please remember to keep it cool!

I confess to a great interest in this subject, alhough I am not at all sure what is right & wrong, & we can never get a definitive answer.

Anyone who has read Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" would be pretty much ashamed at the havoc that Man has wreaked on the animal, bird & plant population during the last century. Earth has existed for x billion years, but in just 100 years, "civilised" Man has destroyed more than one can possibly imagine.

It's a very sad thing. But I really don't now what's right & wrong here, & nor, I suspect, does anyone else.

If Man had left Nature alone in the first place, there would be no need for conservation! What a dilemma.

Nature has also wiped out entire species. Nature doesn't work by always getting it right, it works by getting it wrong millions of times.

Man is a product on nature, therefore it could be argued that everything that man does is natural.

If man dodnt exist, and a volcanic eruption wiped out all the life in africa, who would care, so what would it matter?.

Before man arrived, this sort of thing did happen. Perhaps man is just another natural disaster.

As Tony says, It's a very deep question, these are just some of my thoughts, I don't know the answers.