When is a 'Native Beritish bird' not a 'Native British Bird'?

[Stargazer]

Oh dear – it’s not a native British species. Am I the only one who finds this argument illogical?

I’m starting this as a sort of offshoot from the ‘Eagle Owl’ thread but as it is a separate and wide topic it’s better in its own thread rather than taking the original down a different path. But the point has been made repeatedly that the Eagle Owl isn’t a native British species; what I’m asking is; ‘what does that have to do with anything?’

I don’t want to start a political argument but if we apply the same logic to the human population we would very quickly get into all sorts of trouble. Who are the ‘native British’? There are groups on the far right who think they know who that definition includes (and probably more accurately, who it doesn’t). If we were to say that black people are not native British I suppose an argument could be made for those that have come here from elsewhere, but I suspect that by now most of the black population of this country were born here and have no knowledge of life elsewhere, so what are they if not British? My father’s family arrived here as Huguenot refugees in the 16th century so I must be an immigrant too. Arguments along these lines can only be sustained by drawing a line across the stream of time; everybody who was here before a certain date counts as British and all who came later are immigrants. So where do we draw the line? 1960? 1945? 1690? 1066?

In the same way, certain species are defined as ‘non-native’. The Little Owl is one, Mandarin Duck another; like many others imported by wealthy Victorians they has been here since the 19th century. When I was a boy birders travelled a long way to see a Collared Dove, and the first field guide I ever owned shows it as a vagrant from the Balkans. Now I have a pair preparing to nest in my garden. They are at least resident - the argument becomes even more tenuous when one considers species that are summer or winter visitors. Among the animals, rabbits are apparently a non-native species; I believe they arrived with the Romans…

The simple fact is that populations, whether avian or human, are not static and never have been. They are dynamic systems in their own right and attempts to set them in aspic and define one group as legitimate and another less so are illogical and morally bankrupt, even if they are made by separating those species that spread here naturally from those that were deliberately introduced. Captive birds that escape may be regarded as ‘escapes’, but their offspring by their own survival earn their place in our landscape and deserve the right to life here as much as any other species.

Comments anyone? I’m wearing my tin hat and flak jacket so I’m ready…

[astafjevs]

Your argument is specious, Stargazer. 'British people' are all the same species as everyone else, the argument is about politics or ethnicity or cultural identity when its about homo sapiens.

When its about different species birds its about whether they got here by themselves (natural migration or storm driven etc) and/or are part of the fossil record, or whatever that is called when its recording more recent long-dead stuff rather than just fossils!

But, I broadly agree on the right to life. What is happening to ruddy ducks is shameful. But I only count the birds the BOU says I can.

[Kingfisher]

I totally agree with you! Grey squirrels, ring-necked parakeets, minks, this, that - they all deserve to be culled? Well, they do not. They didn't ask to be brought here but they are here now - all they do is try to survive - and they succeed. If they are better at surviving than other species then that's nature (Darwin...). A red squirrel is cute and 'British' (is it really though - when/how did it get here?), a grey one deserves to be poisoned or shot. Why??
There is no logic to what humans do; it's always about what is convenient, what brings money, what gets in the way and needs to be 'removed'.
Native or not...let's get rid of foxes, badgers, corvids. Things that people do to wildlife, their hidden agendas, people that decide what deserves to live and what deserves to die... All of this makes me feel utterly sick.

[Stargazer]

Not specious at all, although I accept the point about us being the same species. The point is about who has the 'right' to live in a particular place, who 'belongs'. Take the Little Owl (athene noctua); it's been here first as an introduced species and thereafter as a feral one for at least 100 years, probably nearer 150. At what point does it bcome accepted as a nativel part of the British fauna? 200 years? 300 years?

[PeterB]

We (humans) have only been messing with wildlife for a couple of hundred years. In the span of life on this rock, that is an infinitesimally small period of time. We have only really been keeping any serious records of the comings and goings of wildlife for half that time. We can look at fossils and other "evidence" but the planet has changed so much it's not relevant.

Some birds can live anywhere, some live all over and some in small isolated pockets. Some travel half way around the globe twice a year and some never leave the patch they were born in.

I wish we'd stop mucking about with them but we seem compelled as a race to do so. This is another issue altogether.

One of the common definitions of "native" is "Being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place". Well, given that originally, (depending on your religion) when this rock was formed, no one or thing existed anywhere and when things evolved they got shoved around by ice ages, plate tectonics and a few million years of nature evolving, who is to say what is native or not. Us humans apparently "evolved" in what is now the middle east. That makes us non native pretty much everywhere.

It may be the grand design was to have one race of beings evolve to move other races of beings around to keep the gene pools fresh. I really don't know.

Rant over.

[RoyW__]

One of the problems here is that the definition of words in English often differs depending on the usage. Humans may be described as "natives" of a country based on where they are born, and as "non-native" if they then emigrate to another country - but this definition is a political one.

Where wildlife is concerned the term "non-native" is applied to species that only occur in an areas because they have been transported by man. Species that have reached a region by natural dispersion are considered to be "native" to that region regardless of how long they have been there. (Though species that have become extinct in a region, especially if this was a natural extinction not caused by man, can be considered to no longer be native).
Species that only occur because they have been introduced by man are considered to be "non-native", and they remain "non-native" regardless of how long they are present after being introduced. If they survive and prosper they are known as "naturalised", but they never become "native" (unless a natural colonisation occurs at a later date).

While on the subject of definitions, "feral" is commonly used to refer to any introduced species that is living wild. In a more precise zoological sense the term is often restricted to species that have been domesticated by man and have then reverted to a "wild" state (so the various domesticated forms of Mallard and Greylag Goose, and domestic cats living in the wild are feral, but Canada Geese, Little Owls and Rabbits are not).


Non-native populations are not generally considered to have any conservation value in themselves (and in most cases they are species that are common, and widespread, in their native ranges so not at any global risk), but in the past they have not usually been subjected to eradication attempts unless they are considered to be "invasive non-natives" (threatening native wildlife, causing large scale economic damage, or both).
It is now considered important to prevent further non-native species becoming established though, ideally by restricting mans movement of species around the world, and by preventing escapes. If small populations of non-native species do seem to be becoming established it is possible that (in the UK) DEFRA may decide to take 'pre-emptive' action to prevent further spread though. The reason for this is that by the time 'problems' caused by non-native species become apparent it is usually far too late to deal with the problem (Grey Squirrels, Azolla, and Rhododendron will probably now always be part of the British countryside).

The problem with allowing non-native species to live without any control is that in many cases they adversely affect other species. It is of course correct that these species did not ask to be transported around the globe, and they are only trying to survive, but on the flip side the wildlife already present in an area did not ask for new species to be released. The "Darwin" survival of the fittest argument does not really apply, because evolution does not take place overnight. Species native to an area are perfectly evolved to live with, and perhaps even out compete, species they have evolved along side, they may never had faced the sort of selection pressures that allow a species introduced from elsewhere to outcompete them.

If we continue to allow non-native species to become established, and spread, without control we will gradually lose more and more of the biodiversity of the world as a result of mans actions.
The question it basically comes down to is: Which is worst, controlling the species our actions have spread to new areas, or allowing other species to become extinct because we don't?

[Dave Appleton]

I'm with Roy on this one in the main.

For me biodiversity is priority and it's the sign of a healthy environment and ecosystem. I believe we, as humans, are responsible for looking after our environment and the biodiversity that's contained within it. I don't seen any equivalent responsibility for treating the life of every individual animal as sacrosanct, and indeed to do so would be impossible as it would surely be impossible to go about our daily life without ever harming any life-form (including insects for example, or even micro-organisms like bacteria). That is not to say I think we should feel free to go round killing animals as we please - I certainly don't.

There is a considerable weight of evidence that the introduction of non-native species into a region often has a significantly detrimental impact on the native species to that region - biodiversity suffers as native species are threatened by the alien species. Many species have become extinct, or are under threat of extinction, as a direct result of man's introduction of non-native species. In many cases the threat posed by the introduced species wasn't realised at the time of introduction but only appreciated after it was too late.

For this reason I consider that the health of the ecosystem, and the welfare of populations of native species, is of greater importance than the life of a few individual animals. I see no logical or moral reason to oppose a cull of non-native species, simply because it involves killing animals.

Having said that, this does not mean I celebrate the killing of animals in any way. I would far rather they had not beein introduced in the first place, and if there was a realistic way of preventing further introductions then that would be a far better place to concentrate our efforts.

It also doesn't mean that I agree with every instance of culling non-native animals. I do not think it is a good idea to spend millions culling Ruddy Ducks in England in order to prevent them from wiping out White-headed Ducks in Spain when we cannot realistically expect to eliminate Ruddy Ducks from elsewhere in western Europe, or where the process of killing the Ruddy Ducks is so badly managed that it involves significant disturbance of other rare and threatened native wildlife and has probably even involved the accidental killing of White-headed Ducks, the very species the action is attempting to protect!

Originally Posted by Stargazer

Take the Little Owl (athene noctua); it's been here first as an introduced species and thereafter as a feral one for at least 100 years, probably nearer 150. At what point does it bcome accepted as a nativel part of the British fauna? 200 years? 300 years?

Most birders would understand native to include any species that has always existed here or arrived here without the intervention of humans. So if a species was first introduced by the Romans it's not native. However being non-native doesn't mean it's not part of our British fauna. The point at which it is officially accepted as a naturalised species is the point at which the population becomes sufficiently healthy that it can sustain itself without any further introductions. Of course that's a matter of judgement, and those who make the judgement don't always get it right. The Lady Amherst's Pheasant population had reached a point where it had appeared to be self-sustaining, and indeed it was self-sustaining for many years, but the population is now all but extinct. I believe Northern Bobwhite also enjoyed a short spell on the British list while its population was thought to be self-sustaining, but they soon died out too.

[RoyW__]

Originally Posted by Dave Appleton

I would far rather they had not beein introduced in the first place, and if there was a realistic way of preventing further introductions then that would be a far better place to concentrate our efforts.

This is the most important consideration, but unfortunately I do not believe that there will ever be effective control of the movement of species around the world. Some countries, notably Australia and New Zealand, do have very strict rules on what can. or can't, be brought into the country, and have the necessary customs checks in place to try and prevent the rules being broken, and I believe that similar rules should be in place elsewhere.

Of course, even if legislation on what can be brought into the country was in place, this wouldn't necessarily prevent illegal importation, and wouldn't prevent the movement and/or release of species that have already been imported. Unfortunately people believe that it is their "right" to just about any species they feel like, and to be able to plant species from all over the world in their garden (often with little or no regard to potential consequences to the wildlife of the country they live in).
Azolla and Rhododenron are two plants that are known to be invasive, and which cost the UK £millions in attempts to control their spread, but both can be legally bought from garden centres (and even if their sale was banned would without doubt be passed around the country by gardeners who felt that the law breached their human rights to put species that they considered "pretty" in their garden.