Nature knows better than Man

NOW pay attention class! On the face of it, a Government strategy to declare war on alien species that threaten native British plants and animals can only be a good thing.

The New Zealand flatworm, accidentally imported in the 1960s, preys on our earthworms, thus threatening our agriculture. The North American signal crayfish carries a plague deadly to our own crayfish. It eats fish eggs and damages river banks by burrowing into them. Signals were intentionally imported in the 1970s as a tasty food product, but escaped to wreak havoc.

And we all know about the grey squirrels versus the red squirrels ... or do we?

Some experts point out that today's red squirrels are actually imports from Scandinavia, brought over when our own red squirrels died out. They are generally seen as the "goodies", because they are a little cuter than greys, who carry the pox virus. Greys are immune to the virus, which is lethal to reds. What is not so well-known is that the greys also succumbed to the same virus generations ago. Some survived and developed antibodies, leading to their healthy population today. Evolution, natural selection at work. Lesson over. Now you can relax ... a bit.

The notion of defending native species might be noble, but it's not nearly as straightforward as it appears. And that's why many of us have absolutely no faith in the new Invasive Non-Native Species Strategy for Great Britain, which is about to be rolled out, no doubt at great cost.

Nature may be cruel, but as the squirrels prove, she normally manages to work things out for the best. Human intervention on the other hand is almost always disastrous.

Take the rhododendron, introduced by botanists in the 18th century. Nothing grows beneath their branches for one very good reason – they are poisonous to other plants. Even the Scottish bluebell is under threat from a non-scented Spanish variety brought here by, once again, expert botanists in the 17th century.

So if botanists make mistakes, whose decisions are we relying on to sort out the good from the bad? And how can they be sure that short-term gain decisions taken today under this strategy will not have terrible repercussions for the future?

And what's so good about being "native" anyway? Once you consider that cauliflower and broccoli hail originally from the Mediterranean region, that potatoes come from Peru, that cattle originated in India and all domestic dogs are descended from a bunch of tamed wolves in China, you begin to realise the complexity of the situation.

As I sit here guiltily looking out at our greenhouse, where tomatoes, aubergines and courgettes are doing their alien best to survive, I can't help wondering if, under this new strategy, we are going to begin to look differently at botanical gardens, whose sole purpose, for most of us, is to proudly import and display alien species ... species whose seeds could be transported to freedom by birds only to "invade" the British Isles.

If we discovered an edible plant that could survive and feed millions in famine-stricken desert conditions, would we think twice about exporting it to Ethiopia?

The fact is that animal species and plant life in any country is changing and evolving all the time. Add climate change to the mix, and it's inevitable that the landscape will alter over the next 100 years.

We might want to preserve species we believe to be "native", but it is debatable whether or not it is wise to do so.

We can't, for example, rip up every rhododendron in the country just because it is native to the Himalayan foothills and kills off other things in our gardens.

Of course, some things are worth preserving. Elephants, tigers, rhino ... I dare say, if we had had the chance, we would have tried to save the dinosaur too.

But one alien species has caused more harm than any other, and that's mankind. We are the problem, not the solution. And we should be humble enough to accept that, usually at least, Mother Nature knows best. Leave her to get on with it.

Get on your bike
Spokes, the organisation that promotes bicycle use, has been conducting surveys on our roads, the latest of which in Edinburgh showed 474 bicycles, 580 commercial/public transport vehicles and 1490 cars passing a counting point. It also appears that one in four cars in the rush hour is carrying at least one passenger.

I was astonished. Roughly speaking, for every three cars there is one cyclist! And 25 per cent of drivers carry passengers! Naturally I expected Spokes to be delighted at this turn of events.

But no, the finger-wagging goes on. It's not good enough. They won't be happy until we are all wearing unflattering Lycra shorts and hideous helmets, and sweating our way into the office, mascara running down our cheeks, and a look of zealous self-righteousness on our faces.

Taxi for Martin!