|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Apr 3, 2012 11:08:42 GMT -5
<stepping up onto a soapbox>
I really really really am not able to care about traveling (so-called invasive) species... In my world view, every plant and animal is welcome to live wherever it finds a micro-environment that meets it's needs. In the case of earthworms, they will continue to expand their range a few dozen feet northward per year until they reoccupy their pre-glacial range or they find permafrost. And it makes no difference to me if it's a north American worm or a European worm: a worm is a worm is a worm.
And I am a complete disbeliever in the "perfectly attuned" theory... Because conditions on Earth are constantly changing: The environment is constantly changing due to ice-ages, and wild-fires, and solar-minimums, and rotational-wobble, and erosion, and wind, and magnetic-pole swapping, and the evolution of new species, and inter-generic crosses, and species range extension, and range-contraction, and floods, and plate-tectonics, and glaciers, and el-nino, and la-nina, and etc, and etc, and etc: therefore I believe that it is impossible for any plant or animal to be perfectly adapted to it's environment. And in any case, what arbitrary date would I choose for determining what combination of species is the only true ecosystem?
Later edit: I don't think that there is solid scientific evidence that would lead me to believe (in general) that the arrival of new species causes the extinction of pre-existing species. Species extinction in small-island (or other isolated) ecosystems may occur, but that is happening anyway because of the ephemeral nature of islands and the limited carrying capacity of small spaces.
<Stepping down>
|
|
|
Post by keen101 (Biolumo / Andrew B.) on Apr 3, 2012 11:25:12 GMT -5
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but i think the truth lies somewhere in between. Actually that happens a lot for many things. I'm not a fan of ancient Greek philosophy, but Aristotle talks about it with his idea of the "golden mean", where often a truth can be found between two extremes. I believe a similar concept can be found in Taoism and is described as the "middle way" or something along those lines. It's the same idea. I am a firm believer in each person finding their own truths and wisdom in life and not relying on anyone else's. What is true for one person or place is often not true for another.
<steps on soapbox>
Just because other people can't lick their elbow doesn't mean that i can't, so please don't spread around false claims on Taffy wrappers that says that it's physically impossible for all humans, i can bet you a lot of money and i will win everytime. lol.
<steps off soapbox>
|
|
greltam
grub
Everything IS a conspiracy :]
Posts: 59
|
Post by greltam on Apr 3, 2012 12:07:08 GMT -5
I agree with joseph. We are an invasive species, and thus we should eliminate ourselves from the environment in order for the environment to be "pure". In all actuality if you go back to the beginning of life every species that has ever arisen was "invasive". Nature will not make exceptions for species because they were there "first", only those best adapted will continue on. Also, the whole "So well adapted that they couldn't adapt to a changing world" sounds somewhat like what happened to the dinosaurs... I'm sure they would still like to be around cause they had firsties
|
|
|
Post by nuts on Apr 3, 2012 14:50:41 GMT -5
If we introduce polar bears on the antarctic continent extinction of some species of penguins is very possible. Dogmas are very bad in my point of view,no matter on what side it is
There are many cases in which deliberate introducing species is not worth the risc of eliminating other species.
It's no use to talk about species that naturally travels or take profit of ships or planes in a sneaky way,we can not do anything about it.
It's about species that we deliberately introduce somewhere for whatever reason.Sometimes it's just not worth the risc,that's all.
Indeed it's very unlikely that there were no earthworms on the american continent,maybe there were some special geagraphic situations were they didn't come back naturally after the glaciation.Islands maybe. I think however that turtleheart over estimates the harm that reintroduction of the worms in such case causes.earthworms do a good job improving the soil without doing much harm to plants.And the plants in such isolated places are basically the same as in the non isolated places because they just travel much easier than worms.
|
|
|
Post by steev on Apr 3, 2012 15:01:41 GMT -5
Pond scum gets dibs by seniority on the whole Earth. It both adapted the Earth and adapted to subsequent change. All more recent life is Johnny-come-lately and needs to learn to get along and have some humility, even any species that imagines itself the "Crown of Creation".
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Apr 3, 2012 19:09:24 GMT -5
I would gladly introduce penguins to the arctic....
And Chilean flamingos to the Great Salt Lake....
|
|
|
Post by keen101 (Biolumo / Andrew B.) on Apr 3, 2012 20:38:52 GMT -5
I want to create a kangaroo sanctuary up here. Can you even import kangaroos to the U.S.?
|
|
|
Post by steev on Apr 3, 2012 20:41:05 GMT -5
Up I-5 near where I turn off to go west to my farm, I passed under an overpass and happened to look up the side, seeing a large, white bird; just an egret, I thought, then I took another look. That sucker was a flamingo, nothing else has that heavy, hooked, bi-color bill. I suppose it escaped from a zoo or water-park and hadn't gotten enough shellfish in its diet to stay pink. I hope it found an escaped mate and they are busy invading Northern California.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Apr 3, 2012 21:24:41 GMT -5
I guess that if cocaine can be imported that it would be possible to import kangaroos... But it's easier than that... Many private zoos and farms in the usa currently have Kangaroos. For example: www.schreinerfarms.com/wallaroo.htmlAn escaped flamingo lived for about a decade in the vicinity of the Great Salt Lake: Plenty of shrimp for it to eat, thus contributing to his name: Pink Floyd
|
|
|
Post by steev on Apr 3, 2012 23:47:14 GMT -5
I suspect it's harder to smuggle 'roos in a body cavity.
|
|
|
Post by mountaindweller on Apr 4, 2012 3:24:50 GMT -5
The truth lies somewhere in between, but I believe more on Josephs side, at least when we're talking about plants. Here the council spends millions to spray herbicides every year but well the weeds grow back, they are weeds after all. The only thing happens is that the native plants die were it's sprayed, the blackberry grows back, because it's a weed. All these sprays run into the water table into our drinking water. Recently I complained with the council lady that she sprayed the blackberries at the creek which is not allowed. She then said the creek was dry, it wasn't not a single day. I told her that the blackberries will grow back within a year. Then she said that they will then respray. (That is the result when jobs are advertised "must have xx, and xx and be able to follow directions) How long does the "war on weeds go"? The result is nil, but they still spend money on that. Same with rabbits, we should have rabbit each Sunday and the plague would be over.
|
|
|
Post by nuts on Apr 4, 2012 4:48:47 GMT -5
Well,there is more about this discussion.
stand on soapbox
In your country a badly adapted species,the bison,was replaced by the better adapted cattle. Cattle was better adapted because it was to feed the better adapted people,that's to say the people with more guns.
All my sympathy is for the native species and people No sympathy for the "superior" people with their "superior" species. I'm with turtleheart.
step of soapbox
|
|
|
Post by mountaindweller on Apr 4, 2012 5:14:46 GMT -5
These better adapted people poison the landscape to eradicate the highly adapted weeds. Ironically, I have never seen any of the native people working in bushcare groups, maybe they don't like our ways to first clear the bush, fell the trees, build roads, mine the land and then rip outweeds and plant little seedlings of native plants.
|
|
|
Post by templeton on Apr 4, 2012 6:54:13 GMT -5
Soapbox... Why would you want 'roos? Not enough road kill?
And I'm not even looking at that bait, let alone taking it, Joseph. Well, one little nibble...There is a considerable difference in the scale both in numbers, time and impact between non-human and human introductions of novel organisms.
But on an ethical note, why do we think that human introductions are somehow an improvement? and an improvement according to whose values?
I can't help but draw parallels between these arguments and the social darwinism that underpinned much of the racial discrimination of the last century..."[insert derogatory slang for disparaged racial group] are dying out because they aren't as fit for survival as the white race..."
...soapbox... T
|
|
|
Post by keen101 (Biolumo / Andrew B.) on Apr 4, 2012 9:59:04 GMT -5
I dont know. I like kangaroos. But i do like buffalo too. I want a buffalo farm someday.
|
|