Off the shore of SB, on the Channel Islands, various authorities have been trying to cleanse the islands of "unnatural conditions." Certain plants have been eradicated, a few types of animals (wild pigs, small foxes) and so forth have been killed off--all in the name of restoring the islands to their condition before man brought these "unnatural" species to their shores. Indeed, so unique are these islands that apparently they once were home to a miniature mammoth, found nowhere else on the planet.
I am conflicted by these actions. I mean, ya gotta feel sorry for the pigs and foxes and things. They didn't get to the islands on their own, maybe even didn't want to go in the first place. And besides, isn't man's intrusion into the scheme of things part of the evolutionary stream? I mean, apparently man--a much more primitive version, maybe--killed off entire strains of giant marsupials in Australia, centuries before the Sierra Club could protest; and modern man surely has changed virtually every seashore, the courses of rivers, as well as the habitat and habits of countless plants and animals already. If we want to restore America, for example, to "natural conditions," it seems to me, we'd better vacate Manhattan and Santa Barbara, for example, and let the Indians--or, for that matter, whatever species was there before the Indians--take back over.
I understand the desire to undo damage we humans have done to the planet, and I'm not against trying to fix that. But the flora and fauna on offshore islands? What harm is it--what difference does it make--if they bloom free now in 2007 even if, in 1887 they weren't islanders? The travels of humans--surely part of history--landed them there and there, it seems to me, they should live out their lives until some other force removes them.