This file contains the transcript of questions and answers of a discussion held following a BBC radio programme hosted by Paul Evans. Evans is a broadcaster and journalist. He has been involved in nature conservation in Britain for many years and was at one time the chairman of one the main conservation organizations.

Public Awareness
On July 20, 1998 at 21:40:55, Michael Collins wrote:
 One of the issues that came up was that much of the public simply do not care whether a plant is native or introduced (or animal). Couldn't more be done to generate publicity and make this into an issue that the broader public are aware of and care about, for example the damage caused br rhododendrons?

Re: Public Awareness
On July 20, 1998 at 21:58:03, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from Public Awareness written by Michael Collins on July 20,1998 at 21:40:55):
 Rod Gritten, who you heard in the programme, certainly believes that the public needs educating about the damage which, as he sees it rhododendron is doing to native species. But what I'm arguing is that this is symptomatic of a fear of what will happen if we simply leave nature to look after itself. We cant tell why rhododendron has run amok in the British countryside and we cant tell what will happen if we leave it alone. Are you suggesting that we teach children that native species are better than non-native species? Isn't this dangerous in a multi-cultural society?

Re: Public Awareness
On July 20, 1998 at 22:04:26, Joseph Otten wrote:
(following on from Public Awareness written by Michael Collins on July 20,1998 at 21:40:55):
 Publicise the damage that they do by all means, but what is the relevance of the fact that they are introduced?
 Joe

Re: Public Awareness
On July 20, 1998 at 22:25:34, Michael Collins wrote:
(following on from Re: Public Awareness written by Paul Evans on July 20, 1998at 21:58:03):
 Our multicultural society is a very human thing. Are we saying that nature should reflect the ethnic origins of the people here?, I don't see that it has any bearing on nature. An introduced species isn't necessarily bad for biodiversity, but there are several cases, rabbits in Australia, rats in New Zealand, where it is. The ecological effects of any introduction are unknown - not just to directly competing plants say, but the rest of the food chain. By letting things run their course aren't we simply allowing the possibility of extinctions, or don't we care?

Re: Public Awareness
On July 20, 1998 at 22:58:41, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from Re: Public Awareness written by Michael Collins on July 20,1998 at 22:25:34):
 There are plenty of native or indigenous species which also give conservationists headaches. I'm not saying that nature reflects human society but I do think that to condemn a more cosmopolitan nature because it contains non-native species is any more justified than criticising a cosmopolitan society.
 Of course we care about extinctions but I think that many of the technological fixes applied to ecological problems are compounding those problems. We are intervening based on preferences and we must examine these as the philosophers on the programme pointed out. As Kate Rawls says "It's very important to realise that value judgements are being made here. The claim that native species ought to be conserved isn't something you can deduce scientifically. One problem is that those value judgements are often obscured. And I think it's very important to pull those value judgements out to the surface so that we can debate as a community what we want conservation to be conserving, why, and for whom." 

Importing Plant
On July 20, 1998 at 21:31:09, Sarah wrote:
 Do you think HM Customs should introduce stronger restrictions on what we can bring into the UK?
 Many thanks

Re: Importing Plant
On July 20, 1998 at 21:34:33, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from Importing Plant written by Sarah on July 20, 1998 at21:31:09):
 Yes. I do. It's one thing to live with plants and animals that are already part of our wildlife. It's another thing to deliberately store up additional ecological problems without proper consideration. We should follow the precautionary principle.

migration
On July 20, 1998 at 21:33:22, Steve Pilot wrote:
 Isn't it part of the natural scheme of things to 'migrate' and find new habitats? Surely that's why grasses and crops are so successful?

Re: migration
On July 20, 1998 at 21:36:43, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from migration written by Steve Pilot on July 20, 1998 at 21:33:22):
 Yes this is the point that Peter Shirley of the Urban Wildlife Trust was making. He says that an awful lot either gets moved around inadvertently by animals - stuck on their feet or things like that - and it's really difficult to distinguish between things that move around in this way and that are moved by people. 

Plant Migration
On July 20, 1998 at 21:34:44, Alex Lee wrote:
 If the non-native plants are introduced to our, or any other environment for that matter, if non-native plants destroy the native species, is this any loss? Is it not a human influenced survival of the fittest? If the plant is suited for our climate should it not, by all rights, take over?

Re: Plant Migration
On July 20, 1998 at 21:42:15, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from Plant Migration written by Alex Lee on July 20, 1998 at21:34:44):
 I dont think you can apply "rights" to plants in these sort of cases. The destruction of non-native species could be seen as a loss in the same way that plants destroyed by a new road or chemicals is a loss. However, I don't think that this necessarily gives us any more "rights" to destroy the non-natives doing what they do naturally.

Re: Plant Migration
On July 20, 1998 at 22:01:08, Howie Watkins wrote:
(following on from Plant Migration written by Alex Lee on July 20, 1998 at21:34:44):
 Perhaps, yes. However, this may not prove to be in the best interest of the particular habitat in question, or, for that matter, ourselves.

Red Squirrels
On July 20, 1998 at 21:42:59, Janet and Bill Shepherd wrote:
 Should the Red Squirrel be ousted by the grey population. The grey is more successful. We live in one of the few areas where red squirrels still live, should they go?

Re: Red Squirrels
On July 20, 1998 at 21:54:02, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from Red Squirrels written by Janet and Bill Shepherd on July 20,1998 at 21:42:59):
 This is a tricky one. I am not at all convinced that the introduction of grey squirrels is the sole reason why the reds have declined so badly. It is much more complicated than this. When we talk about getting rid of grey squirrels, we're actually talking about killing sentient beings with a complicated life; animals which are individuals and have become part of our wildlife. This raises important animals welfare issues as well as conservation issues and I don't see how we can dismiss grey squirrels because they appear to be a problem.

Rhododendron
On July 20, 1998 at 21:37:06, Joseph Otten wrote:
 I would agree that we shouldn't be making a distinction between indigenous and introduced species, but rhododendron seems locally to be as big a threat to biodiversity as any human development. Wouldn't it be more consistent to try to reduce both human (i.e. concrete) development and rhododendron?

Re: Rhododendron
On July 20, 1998 at 21:43:23, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from Rhododendron written by Joseph Otten on July 20, 1998 at21:37:06):
 It's a good point. And you have to ask which is really the bigger threat to British wildlife, human development - or a few invasive species.

rhododendron
On July 20, 1998 at 21:46:07, David Boa wrote:
 If we try and irradicate rhododendron aren't we in danger of creating new problems? The introduction of cane toads to Australia to get rid of beetles has cause more environmental damage in the long run. Shouldn't we let nature run it's course?
 Many thanks,
 David.

Re: rhododendron
On July 20, 1998 at 21:48:57, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from rhododendron written by David Boa on July 20, 1998 at21:46:07):
 Absolutely. And it's not just the risks of what might go wrong. It's the exciting unknown potential of what might 'go right' if we leave rhododendron alone.

Multi-Natural Britain
On July 20, 1998 at 22:07:03, Bill Shepherd wrote:
 How much of an issue is Multi-naturalism? This I should say is a phrase that I've just invented rather than a piece of political correctness. Are people concerned that ecological purity is an issue?

Re: Multi-Natural Britain
On July 20, 1998 at 22:14:06, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from Multi-Natural Britain written by Bill Shepherd on July 20,1998 at 22:07:03):
 I don't think it is an issue in that it's either natural or it ain't. There are people who are very concerned with ecological purity which I take to mean the integrity of native species and habitats. If what you are getting at is that we have a cosmopolitan nature in a similar way to our cosmopolitan society then I would agree with you and I think we should celebrate it.

indigenous v native
On July 20, 1998 at 22:07:24, Vicky wrote:
 The discussion of the terms of the debate are very much in the context of this being a former colonialist empire. In South Africa, there is great concern about the effect of introduced plants on indigenous vegetation. Can the same terms be applied there or would they be inverted so that we'd be talking about colonial imperialism when foreign plants are introduced?

Re: indigenous v native
On July 20, 1998 at 22:28:56, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from indigenous v native written by Vicky on July 20, 1998 at22:07:24):
 Aurthur Crosby, in his book "Ecological Imperialism" said "the sun never sets on the empire of the dandelion". I don't think we can blame the plants for the behaviour of the colonists who introduced them. I certainly wouldn't like to tell the South African conservationists their business. If you agree with what Judy Ling Wong in the programme - that we should use the less emotive terms "indigenous" and "introduced" then the question of whether the incomers are imperialist or not doesn't really crop up.

Aliens
On July 20, 1998 at 22:31:19, Barry Larking wrote:
 Surely there is a fundamental confusion in ascribing human political questions to the animal world, including plants! I can see people might be uneasy with the language, but what about the reality? In Scotland recently I have seen huge areas of the (to my eye) truly sickly coloured Rhodadrenron ponticum spreading out and forming total cover over large areas and unchecked there will be a monoculture of these plants within many peoples lifetimes. Can this be desirable?

Re: Aliens
On July 20, 1998 at 22:40:28, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from Aliens written by Barry Larking on July 20, 1998 at 22:31:19):
 Yes, there's no question here of applying politically correct attitudes to introduced species, but what do you mean by desirable? It is unfair to expect natural things (that is what rhododendrons are) to comply with our desires.

Introduced pests and diseases
On July 20, 1998 at 22:26:46, John Gibbs wrote:
 Don't forget that introduced plants and animals often bring with them their own pests and diseases that do little damage to them but may be devastating to related species in the new country. Two classic examples are crayfish plague - introduced to Europe on the North American Signal crayfish and Dutch elm disease introduced from North America on imported logs of rock elm. Given this situation, don't you think that a laissez faire attitude such as yours is irresponsible?

Re: Introduced pests and diseases
On July 20, 1998 at 22:44:50, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from Introduced pests and diseases written by John Gibbs onJuly 20, 1998 at 22:26:46):
 I certainly don't think that plants and animals from elsewhere should be deliberately introduced and I agree with stringent restrictions on imports. This is a different point to our treatment of animals and plants which have become an established part of British wildlife. And I don't think this is a laissez faire attitude. 

local provenance
On July 20, 1998 at 22:21:15, Richard Scott Grant Luscombe wrote:
 There has been a lot of concern recently about the issue of local provenance, particularly with regard to wildflower seed mixtures. Given that very few people are actually collecting local seeds, if conservationists are to do anything perhaps they should recognise the effectiveness of simple solutions. By setting simple ecological landscapes in motion we can promote wildness. This is creative conservation at its best without dogma but with an appeal to a larger audience, who may not have access to wildspaces. If one follows the line of the geneticists as regards to cytologically distinct populations we will not be able to move from one field to another. In reality adaptive variation will rapidly act on native plant material to create new and distinct local varieties, bearing in mind the dramatic continuing loss of habitat- Do you agree that we need to act now on a large scale to create new habitats and so reverse the decline? If we do not act will there be anything left for future generations to worry about?

Re: local provenance
On July 20, 1998 at 23:22:57, Richard Scott Grant Luscombe wrote:
(following on from Re: local provenance written by Paul Evans on July 20, 1998at 22:37:08):
 Historically we have always interfered to such an extent that it is almost impossible for many species to survive through "natural processes". The interference we propose, involves creating the right starting point for the evolutionary dance to deliver a diverse landscape (landscape=habitat+man, Nan Fairbrother). This involves the manipulation of substrates and the introduction of simple mixes of native species. Non interference in artificially enriched soils would simply result in landscapes that the public will perceive as derelict. In addition, such approaches would be politically unacceptable today, as the message it sends to industry is one that says you can leave your mess as it will colonise naturally. 
 As you may be aware Landlife is developing the National Wildflower Centre in Liverpool to provide a focus for this debate, as many people now see creative conservation as a new driving force for nature conservation. A number of your contributors are members of our steering group, and we would be interested to hear from others working in this field who would be interested in contributing to the development of the centre. We may be contacted at Landlife, National Wildflower Centre, Court Hey Park, Liverpool L16 3NA. 

Re: local provenance
On July 20, 1998 at 22:37:08, Paul Evans wrote:
(following on from local provenance written by Richard Scott Grant Luscombeon July 20, 1998 at 22:21:15):
 Simple solutions are inevitably based on rather more complicated problems. My own view is that we can promote wildness by leaving places alone as much as possible. However, as an old gardener myself, I know the attraction of creative conservation. What worries me is that interference, however competent and well-meaning, is still gardening. 
 >If one follows the line of the geneticists as regards to cytologically distinct populations we will not be able to move from one field to another. In reality adaptive variation will rapidly act on native plant material to create new and distinct local varieties, bearing in mind the dramatic continuing loss of habitat- Do you agree that we need to act now on a large scale to create new habitats and so reverse the decline? If we do not act will there be anything left for future generations to worry about?
 My inclination is to interfere as little as possible and to allow habitats to develop without interference rather than determine the outcome through intervention. We don't know what will happen in the future. 

Re: local provenance
On July 20, 1998 at 23:43:02, Richard Scott Grant Luscombe wrote:
(following on from local provenance written by Richard Scott Grant Luscombeon July 20, 1998 at 22:21:15):
 On your point about gardening, many nature reserves, with their management plans etc, are just like gardens. I think our ideas fall between yours and the traditional conservation management people. In effect creative conservation is about creating a new culture of land management which cares for the wild feel of things, without the design stamp of the landscape architect or gardener. Chaos theory has its merits, but complete non intervention could condemn us to homogenous landscapes, and deprive millions of the opportunity to enjoy the richness and variety of wildlife.