ALIEN ATTACKS

As someone experienced in land restoration, I find most of the debate about the place of natives versus exotics crude. The issue is really part of a wider debate about land management and the rights and responsibilities of landowners and the Government. Here are some facts.

We have introduced animals and plants that have had and continue to have a devastating effect on native ecosystems. This has gone hand in hand with sometimes unfortunate soil and water management.

Many native species and associations are found only here and where feasible this should be acknowledged. Various Treaty-based arguments are based on the Crown having some responsibility for managing effects on native species.

In many areas, introductions have enhanced habitat, or at least compensated for past radical vegetation clearance – I am thinking of bird habitat on urban fringes and planting in steep catchments in particular.

In many cases, restoration is only ever going to be partial and adaptive to changed circumstances. But is anyone really happy with degraded water systems, eaten-out forests, loss of birdlife, poor soil management and inadequate farming systems?

Good land and resource management should include both conservation and production principles. Rob Harris (Thorndon, Wellington) Lynette Vigrass’ lengthy lecture on aliens versus natives ( Letters, January 14) advocates leaving the two sides to get on with either living with or killing each other.

Perhaps we could introduce a few tigers to keep the tourist numbers under control? No, on second thoughts they might not be good at identifying aliens from natives. Alasdair Abernethy (Whakatane)