🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7ts85s$fc0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <fowp2@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <18204-37FE6FDA-27@newsd-621.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>  zoaracres@webtv.net (Phillip Burgio) wrote:
>>>But when you think about it, aren't the majority of
>>>Americans "starlings"?
>
>Really!  The human population of this country is 99% non-native.  And
>we're miffed about non-native bird and animal species crowding out
>native species?
>
>American scorn for non-native "non-human" species is pretty
>hypocritical.


No it is not. It is ecologically and conservationally reasonable to
disdain the introduction of non-native species, especially those which
crowd out the niches of native species.


Under your reasoning, we should be free to introduce any species we desire
from anywhere in the world. I find that idea reprehensible, and so do most
wildlife and fisheries biologists, whose task is often to ensure the
viability of native species.


In general, it is foolish to set ecologic conservation standards according
to the history of human settlement in North America. Such practice fails
to recognize crucial differences between humans and other animals. Also,
it fails to recognize that the "native" 1% of the US population you
mention above is ultimately descended from a distinctly non-native
population as well.



Eric D