Robert Rowe contributes: > Surely the damage done by woodpeckers is minimal compared with damage > which could be done with an insect vector. You could save out on pesticides! But this is as a threatended species, the preditor value must be marginal. In any case, I do not expect too much investment in forest application of pesticides. > Ecological: If left to them-selves!!, all populations, whether of > predator or prey will reach a balance. Actually not. There are certainly extinctions, both local and global when 'left to them-selves'. However, I agree in principle that leaviing nature alone is generally a desirable choice. > Is the woodpecker that much of a problem that it could not be left in peace? If there is a commercial desire to harvest a forest, then is is clearly a (commercial, economic, . . .) problem for someone to leave the woodpecker (or its habitat) alone. We began this exchange with a contribution asking about attempts to place a value on a critter. It is somewhat of a shame that the critter's life must be considered meaningful only as it relates to the market place (i.e. timber forgoen, prices we would pay to know it still lives, insects it eats that can no longer damage trees -- do the inscects see it as damage?) This all seems a lot like the Christian missionaries marginalizing the peoples of Africa, Asia and the Americas because their values did not fit into a Christian value structure. So the heatherns either converted or died (atleast many places). So the woodpecker either demonstrates its worth to god Mamon or we sacrifice it. Jim Palmer
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0