next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
th
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"/>
</head><body style="">
<div>
Well Fred, House Sparrows were an invasive species.
</div>
<div>
Very invasive I might add. And its the old story
</div>
<div>
they have disappeared - if we could redo the disappearace we might
</div>
<div>
have a chance at the solution but now it would be folks with wild views
</div>
<div>
yelling at each other. Do we want that invasive species back?
</div>
<div>
Enjoy November
</div>
<div>
Paul
</div>
<div>
<br/>> On November 20, 2015 at 4:52 PM Fred Schueler <bckcdb@istar.ca> wrote:
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>> Quoting Dave&Jane Schlosberg <dschlosb-g@ns.sympatico.ca>:
<br/>>
<br/>> > This talk of house sparrows in rural areas sounds well and good.
<br/>> > But I will repeat my downtown Dartmouth story:
<br/>> > house sparrows were abundant here year round 20 years ago and
<br/>> > practically non-existent today in any season.
<br/>> > And I can?t detect that the environment has changed very much.
<br/>>
<br/>> * this decline in House Sparrows should be teaching us valuable
<br/>> lessons about how species fit into ecological communities, but to
<br/>> learn this lesson we'd need either an amateur dedicated to it who has
<br/>> a well-paying undemanding job, or adequate funding for the study of
<br/>> not-at-risk species.
<br/>>
<br/>> fred.
<br/>> ------------------------------------------------------------
<br/>> Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
<br/>> Mudpuppy Night - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
<br/>> Vulnerable Watersheds - http://vulnerablewaters.blogspot.ca/
<br/>> study our books - http://pinicola.ca/books/index.htm
<br/>> RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
<br/>> on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
<br/>> (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
<br/>> "[The] two fundamental steps of scientific thought - the conjecture
<br/>> and refutation of Popper - have little place in the usual conception
<br/>> of intelligence. If something is to be dismissed as inadequate, it is
<br/>> surely not Darwin [, whose] works manifest the activity of a mind
<br/>> seeking for wisdom, a value which conventional philosophy has largely
<br/>> abandoned." Ghiselen, 1969. Triumph of the Darwinian Method, p 237.
<br/>> ------------------------------------------------------------
<br/>>
<br/>>
</div>
</body></html>
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects