Watching a piece on Springwatch last night about Magpies v ‘songbirds’ got me thinking....
The argument of the Songbird Survival Trust (as championed by that intellectual leviathan Jeremy Clarkson) goes like this: We like songbirds – they’re pretty. But songbirds are declining. Magpies eat songbirds. Therefore Magpies must be causing the decline of songbirds. Cull Magpies!
Supposing some members of the Songbird Survival Trust tried to extend that logic to other things....
We like butterflies and moths – they’re pretty. But butterflies and moths are declining. Songbirds eat caterpillars. Therefore songbirds must be causing the decline of butterflies and moths. Cull songbirds!
And if we culled songbirds, then the Magpies would have less available prey, so their numbers would drop as well. Brilliant! Oh, hang on a moment – songbird numbers are falling anyway, and yet predators are.... somehow.... increasing.... and butterflies and moths are.... declining as well.
Shit.
Perhaps we’d better cull everything just to be on the safe side.
The argument of the Songbird Survival Trust (as championed by that intellectual leviathan Jeremy Clarkson) goes like this: We like songbirds – they’re pretty. But songbirds are declining. Magpies eat songbirds. Therefore Magpies must be causing the decline of songbirds. Cull Magpies!
Supposing some members of the Songbird Survival Trust tried to extend that logic to other things....
We like butterflies and moths – they’re pretty. But butterflies and moths are declining. Songbirds eat caterpillars. Therefore songbirds must be causing the decline of butterflies and moths. Cull songbirds!
And if we culled songbirds, then the Magpies would have less available prey, so their numbers would drop as well. Brilliant! Oh, hang on a moment – songbird numbers are falling anyway, and yet predators are.... somehow.... increasing.... and butterflies and moths are.... declining as well.
Shit.
Perhaps we’d better cull everything just to be on the safe side.
No comments:
Post a Comment