At 7.17 pm -0800 26/1/01, Rachel Lawson wrote:

>Has anyone else noticed that all the posts about control of gorse, an
>aggressive, introduced plant species that harms native species and
>ecosystems, have passed without negative comment, while posts about control
>of starlings, an aggressive, introduced bird species that harms native
>species and ecosystems, have attracted hostile ad hominem attacks? Sure,
>starlings are warm and fuzzy, but what is the real difference if we truly
>want to protect and preserve our natural environment?

Vertebrate animals are fundamentally different from plants
physiologically. Vertebrates are similar enough to us that empathy
becomes possible, which influences our morals and ethics, which link to
our emotions in such a way as to set off those hot-buttons on either
side. Attributing it merely to the warm fuzzies ignores our own
biology, culture, and history. [Extending the limits of what's
considered warm and fuzzy might even be considered a sign of increasing
knowledge and biological sophistication--you should see some of us ooh
and aah over bugs and microscopic soil beasties! Even a couple of my
most hard-hearted friends have voted to release some of the little guys
rather than kill and preserve them for later identification :-).]

But there are at least two other, and perhaps more important, differences:

* Invasive plants cause far more harm. They disrupt entire habitats by
forming monocultures. They disturb all species in the habitat, from
other plants, through insects and other invertebrates, to all larger
animals, and can even disturb or poison the soil and soil
microorganisms so that future restoration becomes nearly impossible for
many decades.

* With many invasive plant species, there is still some hope of control
by killing them--whether pulling them up, smothering them, or
herbiciding them. Individual property owners can often make a real
difference to a region by keeping their property free of gorse and
other noxious weeds to reduce seed production, which for some invasive
plants can be on the order of tens of thousands or more seeds per plant
per year. Not even invasive insects are that prolific... The ethics
here rest on choosing the control method, in the hopes of reducing side
effects to other species, and don't think that this can't turn
emotional, too!

But starlings and many other invasive animal species don't stay on one
person's property. They roam widely, and any one property will never
contain a high enough percentage of the total population that removing
them will matter. Killing a few here and there may be satisfying in
some sense to some people, but it can't solve the problem.

A more useful solution for the urban/suburban starling problem is to
get rid of your lawns, and encourage your neighbors to get rid of
theirs. The starlings in my neighborhood seem to spend very little
time in shrubby areas, but they love lawns. They also profit greatly
from all those free bird seed handouts, so stop feeding birds in
feeders--feed the birds by planting native plant habitats which produce
good old-fashioned native seeds, berries, and bugs, instead. (There
isn't a single native animal that needs a non-native plant for it's
health and well being.) There's even some evidence that non-native
shrubbery such as cherry laurel aids and abets nest predators by
allowing easy access to nests compared to native shrubs such as
hawthorn.

Starve out starlings at the same time you build up better habitat for
our native plants, birds, insects, and other animals. After all, those
lawn grasses are highly invasive, habitat destroying exotic weeds that
only escape the noxious weed list because of the $30+ billion per year
industry behind them...
--
Allyn Weaks allyn at tardigrade.net
Seattle, WA Sunset zone 5
Pacific NW Native Wildlife Gardening: http://www.tardigrade.org/natives/