Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2006 13:39:21 GMT
As many of us are aware re-introductions have occured all around the world, however the ones that people are more aware of are generally the larger species such as the Wolf in North America and the European Beaver in Europe (Suprisingly enough). Britain has seen one contravercial introduction over the last 50 years and that is the White Tailed Sea Eagle. Scotland on Sunday has just reported that after a successful re introduction project in the Western Highlands a new attempt will be made on the East Coast of Scotland. This is probably a better habitat for them and hopefully their British Population will have better growth than in previous years. scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1833552006I am passionate about native species being allowed to be present in a particualr environment, my deffinition is that if a species got somewhere without Mans intervention than it is native. If it has been there for over 100 years it is naturalized. It was the introduction of large carnivours such as the Wolf and Bear which inspirerd me to work in nature conservation although I am now working towards managing habitats. Anyway what do you think of the White Tailed Eagles and other species introductions?
|
|
|
Post by FlyingScotsman on Dec 12, 2006 15:00:42 GMT
Generally anything that reverses the human tendency to make things extinct and then whine about it afterwards is fine by me.
Although I remember reading that, ironically, it's often human bungling that results in species reintroductions. I understand that wild boar have been sighted in the wild in Britain, largely because they've escaped from farms.
And Chernobyl, of all places, has become a bit of a paradise for rare species. No humans dare to go near the abandoned power station (what with that whole "atomic hellhole" thing), so the ecosystem around there is gradually reverting to a pre-human state, including some very rare species. They don't seem too bothered by the radiation.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Iron on Dec 12, 2006 19:07:50 GMT
need more species re-introductions IMO. Also need to stop doing so much building. Ruining these animals homes.
|
|
|
Post by The Old Bean on Dec 14, 2006 9:16:25 GMT
*puts on his conservative hat*
Not all species reintroduction (or introduction) is a good thing. Can the animals survive in the wild there is out there? Furthermore, will they be a threat to the precious ecosystems that are already established? These are the things you have to consider when reintroducing a species. I'm from a country where an introduced species is destroying our crops and the governments promote their destruction. It's fun, apparently, to use cane toads as golf balls.
Furthermore, building is essential. As we grow, so must our infrastructure. We are indeed the dominant species and we must continue to support our own expanding needs. In much the same way as a beaver will be happy to destroy trees to build or extend its dam, we too must build and extend to survive. Yes it's a shame that animal / plant areas have to be demolished, but that's the price. Usually, builders take these things into consideration though. Animals are moved to wildlife sanctuaries or to other habitats (ala National Parks).
|
|
|
Post by FlyingScotsman on Dec 14, 2006 10:03:36 GMT
That is a good point. At the risk of going off-topic (lucky we have that fork button), we can't have it both ways with the environment.
Back on topic, I hear there are plans to bring wolves back to the UK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2006 21:18:15 GMT
Nah, that is a valid point and I wouldn't say that it does need a fork. After all there are some criteria that they look for before species re introductions.
1) The reason/Factor for the species extinction should no longer be prevelant. 2) The habitat should be capable of supporting the species. 3) People can accept it in its environment.
Otherwise there is no point in introducing or re introducing species, now Old Bean this is partly where I agree with you, yes they do need to be fully researched. However many of the world species were wiped out by man, Mainland Great Britain is very diverse for an island in its location, isolation and size, however many large species that should be there are extinct. For example the Wolf, Brown Bear, Lynx, European Bison, Elk (Moose in America) Eagle Owl and many others have been wiped out by man through fear and over hunting. Why should we decide what species should live on this plannet, the latest predictions say that the Arctic Ice cap will be gone by 2040, so surely we should cling on to what diversity we have left. There is also the argument that without large carnivores our ecosystems are unhealthy. For example UK woodlands have been managed for centuaries, without this management they become overgrown as too many trees grow. Unless deer graze them, however as there is no large carnivour they overgraze and prevent it from growing back. However this cannot happen in the UK therefore we need the large carnivoures back!
|
|
|
Post by The Old Bean on Dec 15, 2006 6:51:31 GMT
You can't eat wolves.
Now, that's an odd phrase to use, but you're talking about reintroducing wolves back into the UK. If you want wolves, take ours! Wolves are nothing more than a nuisance and murderous bastards. They kill sheep, especially, but have been known to go onto larger animals. We need those sheep and livestock for our own food supply.
We control what animals can live on this planet, because we are the dominant species. Sure I'm happy to see as many as possible, but there has to be strict animal management.
|
|
|
Post by CabForward on Dec 15, 2006 8:51:23 GMT
Can we re-introduce talking locomotives? They're a species, aren't they?
If not, I don't care. =P
I have to say, some species introduction is good. What can eat canetoads? I don't know, but if there's something, we should introduce it to Australia. See? Excellent use of species introduction. Of course, you'd have to make sure this species won't become a bigger pest.
|
|
|
Post by The Old Bean on Dec 15, 2006 11:23:59 GMT
Nothing can eat canetoads. They are poisonous.
|
|
|
Post by CabForward on Dec 15, 2006 12:58:11 GMT
I thought there were things immune to poison. Like, snakes are immune to their own poison, aren't they? And also, I think Australia has some poisonous plants that affect introduced species, but not to native species.
Then how was the canetoad population kept down wherever they came from?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Iron on Dec 15, 2006 20:49:04 GMT
Nothing can eat canetoads. They are poisonous. I've seen there's a type of snake that can eat cane toads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2006 22:44:20 GMT
OK, this thread is about species Re Introductions not introductions. In the past there have been many introductions of "Alien Invasive Species" which have caused many problems around the world and are said to be the second biggest cause of extinctions after habitat destruction by man. There have been many situations when people have introduced one species to control another which has gone disasterously wrong and Australia is a prime example for that. Please keep it to re introductions as in bringing back a species made extinct by man. You can't eat wolves. Now, that's an odd phrase to use, but you're talking about reintroducing wolves back into the UK. If you want wolves, take ours! Wolves are nothing more than a nuisance and murderous bastards. They kill sheep, especially, but have been known to go onto larger animals. We need those sheep and livestock for our own food supply. We control what animals can live on this planet, because we are the dominant species. Sure I'm happy to see as many as possible, but there has to be strict animal management. Firstly your Wolves are Timber, Red etc not European so they wouldn't be introduced to the UK anyway and you say that they are a nuisance and murderous. Well firstly if you were given the chance to go into the nearest take away and get your favourite meal for free or face the job of hunting it, or are you going to chase it down spending nearly all of your energy, mostly unsuccessfully, risking your life. The farm take away wins with me every time! You also call them murderous, well how often do they attack humans? The Polar Bear is the only species known to actively hunt humans, unless there is another one that hasn't been discovered yet. Also it has been proven that measures can be taken to prevent wolves hunting livestock, this is why it is illegal to kill them in Poland and other European countries. Also if we need these animals so much for our own food supply then why do we have food mountains, rats no less than 6 metres from us on average and many other species raiding our bins and landfill sites. That shows us being a wasteful top species that has too many resources at our disposal.
|
|
SRapi
Main Line Engine
Pronounced: Ess-Are-Ay-Pie.
Posts: 1,543
|
Post by SRapi on Jan 9, 2014 17:37:05 GMT
Would you count domestication as a kind of species re-introduction? In the USA, there are farms and ranches that are working on the domestication of the American Bison. These animals were once nearly hunted to extinction, but have since become protected and efforts are being made to raise the population.
The belief is that if we domesticate the buffalo, they can be farm raised for their meat, milk, and fur. By selling these goods derived from the animal, the demand for them will increase, causing an economic benefit to raising more, and thus increasing the population. It's why I order bison burgers if I see it on the menu- doing my part to raise demand, and it tastes good.
How this affects buffalo released back to the wild, I'm not sure. Just like I don't know much about wild cows or horses running around. But I think it's a good cause that will hopefully 're-introduce' the buffalo back to a much larger population.
|
|