A somewhat arbitrary distinction. Humans and their dogs and livestock are invasive and destructive. Why pick on the ivy but not on Australian shepherds and chihuahuas?
My point was the apparent lack of awareness involved in demonizing a plant species but giving a pass to a duck, when both are non-native species introduced by people. Why are Portlanders tearing down ivy but not killing house sparrows? Or marijuana plants for that matter, also not native to North America.
Portland is the Rose City, famous for the rose gardens. Those are non-native flowers, no one is running around tearing them up.
giving a pass to a duck, ... non-native species introduced by people.
Because the duck isn't invasive.
Why are Portlanders tearing down ivy but not killing house sparrows?
Because the ivy is invasive.
Portland is the Rose City, famous for the rose gardens. Those are non-native flowers, no one is running around tearing them up. Environmentalism generally stops when things start
Because the roses aren't invasive.
house sparrows
The house sparrows are invasive (at least in the northeast, not sure about the PNW). A lot of don't realize this, because they're ubiquitous. Same with starlings.
Here's where we get into the topic of humans being humans, generally acting in response to straightforward preferences.
Mass slaughter of cute (and familiar to the point where people don't realize they're not native) little birds to protect other little birds is a tougher pill to swallow than just ripping up some plants and planting different plants. This is too icky for a lot of people to consider.
Moreover, the effects are too subtle for most people to notice, who are generally not "in tune" with nature at all. How many people can even identify different sparrow species in the first place?
I don't think this amounts to some kind of double standard like you seem to be implying. People just find it harder to kill things that have blood and brains, than to kill things that have roots and leaves, especially if said blood-and-brain things are cute and/or familiar.
Humans and their dogs and livestock are invasive and destructive
Humans: And? This is like saying that environmentalists are hypocrites because they drive cars.
Cats: Cats that are allowed to roam free outdoors are a big problem. I think people who actually are interested in this topic know that, and as far as I know this notion has been gaining popularity in recent years. People want to let little Fluffy roam free, and don't want to think of him as a bloodthirsty predator, whose aggregate behavior amounts to ecological-scale genocide. This thought crosses both the icky line and the selfish-human line.
Dogs: Arguably, only dogs with inept owners are invasive/destructive. Although once in a while even a good dog will dig up a native cottontail burrow, chase after a woodchuck, or scare off some deer. As with cats, it crosses both the icky line and the selfish-human line.
I understand all of that and don't disagree, not even about cats. As I wrote in my comment above, I mean to point out the apparent lack of awareness. It wasn't clear that the Audubon guide even knew mandarin ducks are not a native species. Whether they cause ecological damage or harm native duck species is another question.
Sparrows and especially starlings have competed with native species. They are such successful species that they may have made their way to the New World on their own if humans hadn't introduced them.
I lived in Portland for a long time. Once I was hiking with my son, on a trail with clear signs Stay On The Path and Dogs Must Be On Leash. We came across a woman off the trail, with her black Labrador off leash digging in the brush, tearing up a fern. I stopped to ask her to put her dog on a leash, and mentioned she should not be off trail damaging the plants. She was busy tearing down English ivy, and responded haughtily that she was doing that tree a favor. Besides her lack of awareness and virtue signaling it seemed she was doing more harm than good, and her off-leash dog, which no doubt never bit her, was barking at my young son and scaring him (which is why I stopped to ask her to leash her dog in the first place).
I hesitate to call such people hypocrites, or to point out that all the pot growing in Oregon required clearing native trees and plants. I call that lack of awareness, and in some cases virtue signaling.
Comments
A somewhat arbitrary distinction. Humans and their dogs and livestock are invasive and destructive. Why pick on the ivy but not on Australian shepherds and chihuahuas?
My point was the apparent lack of awareness involved in demonizing a plant species but giving a pass to a duck, when both are non-native species introduced by people. Why are Portlanders tearing down ivy but not killing house sparrows? Or marijuana plants for that matter, also not native to North America.
Portland is the Rose City, famous for the rose gardens. Those are non-native flowers, no one is running around tearing them up.
Because the duck isn't invasive.
Because the ivy is invasive.
Because the roses aren't invasive.
The house sparrows are invasive (at least in the northeast, not sure about the PNW). A lot of don't realize this, because they're ubiquitous. Same with starlings.
Here's where we get into the topic of humans being humans, generally acting in response to straightforward preferences.
Mass slaughter of cute (and familiar to the point where people don't realize they're not native) little birds to protect other little birds is a tougher pill to swallow than just ripping up some plants and planting different plants. This is too icky for a lot of people to consider.
Moreover, the effects are too subtle for most people to notice, who are generally not "in tune" with nature at all. How many people can even identify different sparrow species in the first place?
I don't think this amounts to some kind of double standard like you seem to be implying. People just find it harder to kill things that have blood and brains, than to kill things that have roots and leaves, especially if said blood-and-brain things are cute and/or familiar.
Humans: And? This is like saying that environmentalists are hypocrites because they drive cars.
Cats: Cats that are allowed to roam free outdoors are a big problem. I think people who actually are interested in this topic know that, and as far as I know this notion has been gaining popularity in recent years. People want to let little Fluffy roam free, and don't want to think of him as a bloodthirsty predator, whose aggregate behavior amounts to ecological-scale genocide. This thought crosses both the icky line and the selfish-human line.
Dogs: Arguably, only dogs with inept owners are invasive/destructive. Although once in a while even a good dog will dig up a native cottontail burrow, chase after a woodchuck, or scare off some deer. As with cats, it crosses both the icky line and the selfish-human line.
I understand all of that and don't disagree, not even about cats. As I wrote in my comment above, I mean to point out the apparent lack of awareness. It wasn't clear that the Audubon guide even knew mandarin ducks are not a native species. Whether they cause ecological damage or harm native duck species is another question.
Sparrows and especially starlings have competed with native species. They are such successful species that they may have made their way to the New World on their own if humans hadn't introduced them.
I lived in Portland for a long time. Once I was hiking with my son, on a trail with clear signs Stay On The Path and Dogs Must Be On Leash. We came across a woman off the trail, with her black Labrador off leash digging in the brush, tearing up a fern. I stopped to ask her to put her dog on a leash, and mentioned she should not be off trail damaging the plants. She was busy tearing down English ivy, and responded haughtily that she was doing that tree a favor. Besides her lack of awareness and virtue signaling it seemed she was doing more harm than good, and her off-leash dog, which no doubt never bit her, was barking at my young son and scaring him (which is why I stopped to ask her to leash her dog in the first place).
I hesitate to call such people hypocrites, or to point out that all the pot growing in Oregon required clearing native trees and plants. I call that lack of awareness, and in some cases virtue signaling.