We Dutch are kind to nature, even if we have to kill for it.
We created The Netherlands, a former swamp area at the end of the rivers Rhine, Maas, IJssel and several smaller streams.. Because of that we think we have the right to do with it what ever we think is 'right'.
Someone behind a desk decides what's acceptable and what's not. Their goal is to (re)create nature. Life as we want it, Jim.
Therefore the Goois Natuur Reservaat (GNR) has decided to make a connection between two parts of heathland. Cutting down, killing, thousands of trees in the proces.
"These connections give warmth-loving animals like reptiles and butterflies the opportunity to migrate from one place to another. Such ecological connections are of great importance for the natural richness of our environment".
What natural richness ? Who defines natural richness ? Douglas tree, Japanese Larch, Corsican Pine, American Oak, Black Cherry; they don't belong here. At least at a certain moment in time. And that moment is determined behind a desk. If we go back 15.000 years things looked quite different from today. Let's remove humans and reintroduce the mammuth ! Go back 3000 years and the intruding species Homo Sapiens is firmly established, wolf and bear are still here, rhinos and lions are gone.
The desk decides to go back 150 years. That decision costs a lot of money. Our money. How long does the desk want to maintain 1861. One hundred years ? Five hundred ? Ten thousand ?
Change is inevitable. We can cut down as many trees as we want but in the end the trees will win. They will regain lost land and cover our 'civilisation', like they covered Central and South Americain cultures.
The intention of wanting to play the almighty is totally out of order in my opinion and a role that's destined to fail.
1 opmerking:
Well the problem is mainly that natureorganisation tend to be very nationalistic. And they share all aspects with cultural extreme conservatists: xenophobia, loving the past (their heritage), inflexible and they do not like changes. They tend to have very Puritan views on nature that indeed originate from pre-Darwinian times.
All things they consider indigenous are great and even if it has extirpated or become extinct in their country because it simply wasn't fit enough, it always will remain welcome because it ONCE WAS Dutch, English or whatever.
Something that has been brought in by humans, even if it does well in its new environment for many generations will never be welcome or considered indigenous. In their extremist view it is therfor not desirable and worthless. Human dispersal is considered "artificial" or "unnatural". Is that so? We have done it for millennia and so much that we do not know what the origins of many species on Polynesian Islands. Is mankind unnatural? This cannot be proven is another artifact of Victorian views on men.
However: whole landcapes created once by human "interference" and now completely depending on our species in order not to become forest, are called "seminatural". Yes. My car is also seminatural in that view as it is build up by many natural materials I guess.
Double standards. Why is it that somehting is not in its place because it grows here NOW. Why is something in its place evn though it cannot survive with our interference? If a Birch starts to cover the moors it is called "apioneer". Quite noble. If a Sitka spruce does exactly the same, it is an invasive alien. Like Piet Heyn is called a pirate in Spain and a hero in The Netherlands.
Invasion ecology, restoration ecolgoy are not sciences as they do not approach their study object in an objective way. They look what negative influences a new species has. Not what its effects are. They use consistant, stigmatising wording for newcomers.
And they research that which they know they want to eradicate or destroy.
Another point: if an introduced species is much fitter than the species that was here before it, it is ""unfair". All of a sudden, morality is a factor. If you say that a lion killing the cubs of another male lion is awfull or disasterous, than it is survival of the fittest and morality is no longer valid.
If they count the biodiversity, than alien species do not count.
Because the focus is the worldwide biodiversity? Is it? Why then spending tons of money to protect a species that is only endangered within your country, like the English Red Squireel. It is not under any threat of extinction in Euroe, only in England...Just one of many examples.
So it is going bad, as older species are lost over time....Like the Netherlands have 7 million people now and it is getting less and less, because we simply do not count the other 9 million as Dutch because they have some Spanish or German blood in them....
These ideological thoughts leads to the purification of the European and North American nature.
It is pure nationalism in ecology in which double standards are the rule and being native in itself, by itself is a virtue. We have seen this in society aswell and now how detrimental it gets when you are considered alien or not welcome...Like the trees in the Spanderswoud for instance. One of many Duthc woods facing this faith.
Een reactie posten