Here’s hoping they are correct about the snakes.

Sparrow Hawks & various kites are now protected and have multiplied, so smaller birds have declined.

Animal rights activists released mink into the wild & they decimated wildlife.

These well meaning idiots have no idea!

DaveE.

This practice opened up clearings in which animals and plants other than trees could do well.

This practice has stopped, as the products are no longer needed. The forests are closing in again on these previously clear spaces, and the various species other than trees no longer can grow, as their habitat is being destroyed by natural forces. So the scientists are wringing their hands with woe . . . because no longer are humans interferring with nature and many species are dying out.

I’m with Ron De Haan on this one.
I live in England and the sparrow ( a bird ) population has noticebly decreased in the UK. Some blame it on global warming!
When I go to Spain or Potugal on holdiday , there are huge sparrow populations.
Its lovely to see the cheeky little chaps. Spain and Portugal are probably 10c overall warmer than the OK— not the 0.6C or less allegedly caused by AGW So why are there sparrows there and not so many in the UK?

Don’t forget Italy.
The super swarms over the city of Rome are famous but it’s inhabitants hate it because some times it “rains” bird shit.

There is a tv series titled “New Wilderness” celebrating how well nature and wild life has adapted to the human civilization and how they exploit the opportunities provided by the land use by humans, the parks and natural parks and resorts.

All those alarmists!

“For example, Kirtland’s warbler (nests in upstate Michigan) was down to a few hundred in number two decades ago, and no one knew why the numbers had plummeted. It turned out that to protect its nest from predators, it needed to nest in jack pine trees of a certain size and age (about 10 years, I think). Fire suppression had worked so well(?) that there were hardly any pines left suitable for the bird, so nesting failed year after year. They couldn’t adapt. Once the science had been done, prescribed burning occurred on a regular basis, and now there are many places in upstate Michigan with the right age and size of pine for the bird to nest. And we now are back to about 2500 Kirtland’s warblers.”

Another example of greenie understanding of nature?

What I want to know from the RSPB is whether they have asked the birds if they want to be protected. Most wild critters seem much happier to be left alone by humans.

Many species do adapt very well — for example, generalists such as crows, gulls, city pigeons, starlings — species which can eat many things (including bread, or fries thrown into a garbage can), and which can live and breed in different environments. Another example: possums and raccoons can live well in cities — we had raccoons mating in a tree outside our bedroom window in Washington, DC a decade ago.

But many species for one reason or another cannot adapt well. Often they have very particular nesting or dietary requirements, or are of too much interest to humans as food or as pets.

For example, Kirtland’s warbler (nests in upstate Michigan) was down to a few hundred in number two decades ago, and no one knew why the numbers had plummeted. It turned out that to protect its nest from predators, it needed to nest in jack pine trees of a certain size and age (about 10 years, I think). Fire suppression had worked so well that there were hardly any pines left suitable for the bird, so nesting failed year after year. They couldn’t adapt. Once the science had been done, prescribed burning occurred on a regular basis, and now there are many places in upstate Michigan with the right age and size of pine for the bird to nest. And we now are back to about 2500 Kirtland’s warblers.

Many macaws and parrots are now in critically low numbers in the wild because they are captured for the pet bird trade. One (Lear’s Macaw) is now beginning to come back from a low of about two hundred in the wild because conservation groups have worked with local residents to protect it. We are now captive breeding some macaw and parrot species for sale in the pet bird trade so that there will be less value for wild-caught birds, hopefully reducing pressure for smuggling them. Again, the birds couldn’t adapt to the economic imperative to capture and sell them.

Some species (Passenger Pigeon, Eskimo Curlew) were good eating and were easily enough hunted, and are now gone. Many species have, through intervention by humans, have had their numbers rebound — bison, for example, and grizzly bears in three states in the lower 48.

So while some species can adapt, many cannot. That is why some of us who care about extinction of species feel the need to take proactive steps to ensure their survival. I’ve given some examples of early success for a few species above, but there are (thank goodness) many more such examples, as well as examples of recent extinctions. I am proud to support groups who in my view do this work well — Conservation International, Nature Conservancy, and Ocean Conservancy.

“Oh no! We’re fragile and not permanent souls. We never thought it was this frail to be alive. we could tip over at any point, and look what evolution says. Its worse than we thought!”

The 19th century was however, a more rational and curious period, scientifically.

Baucus opposes the Kerry Boxer climate bill because he wants a 17% CO2 reduction instead of the proposed 20% CO2 reduction in the bill.

If this is “opposition”, shoot me!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5A42V220091105

Look to see more of this after the Conservatives are elected – after all reasearch scientists need to adapt to changing environments just like the species they study