Subject: [Tweeters] re: Invasive species (Monk parakeets)
Date: Nov 30 19:21:47 2007
From: Scott Downes - downess at charter.net


Tweets,
Been following the monk parakeet discussion with interest, and now with
added interest as the discussion broadened into the philosophy of invasive
species in general. I don't want to point fingers or incite larger
discussions but would like to take a second to put my thoughts in. To frame
my reference I am a wildlife biologist who is very passionate about what
humans have done to alter our native ecosystems.
With that context in mind here are my comments about invasive species (not
necessarily about the monk parakeets but could apply if these birds fit into
the notes discussed below). Yes humans have mostly been the guilty party of
introducing invasive species, i.e. House sparrows and Starlings we are both
guilty of. To use words like "victim" though adds irrational thought to the
picture. While we did mess things up by introducing them, as one poster did
say they are trying to survive and will resort to the very most primal
instinct of survival. I hear the word "humane" also discussed. Let me frame
this in a ecological point of view... native species have the most "right"
to be here, they did not introduce the invasive species, have had their
habitat altered and in general are facing fierce competition from invasive
species. Starlings will force and I do mean force native cavity nesters out
of their nests over and over. I seriously doubt that starlings care about
being humane to the birds they are evicting, including helpless nestlings
incapable of surviving outside of the nest at such a young age. To use
"humane", victim or other words put things in the perspective of humans but
I feel does nothing but continue to hurt native species. We can debate about
native species from other areas "encroaching" on locals, i.e. Barred Owls,
but I'm not talking about this here. I'm referring to starlings, house
sparrows etc.. Yes we made a very bad mistake to bring them here, do we need
to continue to make a bad mistake by feeling they are the victim and
shouldn't be handled? I don't mean to be flamed or cause huge discussions
but there is a point of reality.. in this country we have millions of the
two species mentioned above, there is no practical place to put them and
thousands more are breed every day. They will kill and vigorously displace
native cavity nesters which already are suffering from other decisions we've
made, do we care more about feeling bad for these species or do we owe some
management in favor of the native species? I know its not popular to remove
animals but sometimes the only responsible thing to do from an ecological
point of view.
We would do well to consider any of these actions from an ecological point
of view rather than a warm and fuzzy what makes us feel good point of view.
We owe that to the nature we've already "managed" improperly.

Scott Downes
downess at charter.net
Yakima WA