Recently I received a comment from someone on YouTube stating:
@SparrowSquad You are right, they are attacking them for the bnesting grounds. But is this so wrong in Nature ? Let us take a step back and ask why they were introduced. Pest control, and they performed very well at it. They are not alone. They are doing what they need to survive. Mankind is doing the same ddeds to nature, but call it Sport or management. Birds dont have guns
Same old same old, the logic just doesn't work. Aside from the grammar and spelling issues, this statement is full of holes.
The poster asks: Is this so wrong in nature?
Yes, sometimes it is. Look at the Asian Carp, for example. It took the same path for the most part, being introduced to an environment not it's own by humans. Now the Asian Carp is threatening North American waters so much that the government is stepping in to help prevent their spread. The Asian Carp is simply trying to survive, and they aren't even intentionally killing native species young! They simply take up too much space, yet they are such a problem that it requires government scientist to fix the problem and they are killed by the thousands. Do you take issues with this or should we let the carp destroy all of the waters in North America simply because they are trying to survive?
The poster mentions: They were introduced for pest control and they perform very well
Sure, both of those statements are correct-or used to be. These days sparrows don't eat too many insects thanks to the ready supply of bird seed and food trash supplied by us. Ladybugs were also introduced for pest control and they are now such a problem that people are using shop vacs to get them out of their house in huge numbers. They are great at pest control so should we allow the ladybugs to take over our house based on the idea that they are performing very well at their intended purpose?
The poster says: Mankind is doing the same thing
I talked about this in one of my articles on the home page, you can't apply human emotions and standards to animals. They aren't humans. It's as simple as that. I believe life in every form is special, but to say that an animal should have the same rights as humans is insane, literally. One thing to remember is that hunters hunt for sport, but they are authorized to hunt by the government for management purposes. That hunting helps you to avoid being killed when a deer runs out in the street. The deer population is so large that they cause millions of dollars worth of damage and kill thousands of people each year in traffic accidents. This is why they must be managed. Many of these prolems in nature have been caused by us and it is our responsibility to remedy these problems as best we can.
Nothing should be able to dominate uncontested in nature because it sends everything out of balance. This is basic elementary science. Aside from the obvious problems from a species like the Asian Carp which just takes up too much space and uses up all of the resources in the body of water that they are inhabiting, the circle of life should explain it pretty well. If there are too many frogs, the snake population will boom. If the snake population booms, the rodent population will decrease drastically. If the rodents are gone, the owls don't get to eat as much meaning the owl populations will decrease. So allowing the frogs to flourish and take over based on the idea that everything should live all the time has now caused the owls to become threatened. Add to this scenario that the frogs were introduced decades ago by ignorant people and you have a mess that shouldn't be happening.
Just something to think about.
