True. We’d still be tinkering with a species survival/numbers, etc. I am just a little surprised this would go over here (SDMB).
Hey, whatever, you know what they really hate is humanity! Those people hating liberals! They’re hypocrites too because people are species as well, why do they want to kill off all humanity?
I disagree. (Well, numbers, yeah; but not Numbers.) An invasive species, by definition, doesn’t belong in an area. When an invasive species is causing a decline in the native species, the native species should have priority. If the carp were not causing a decline in native species, I wonder if anyone would care that they’re there?
This is not a perfect analogy for obvious reasons: You own a home and a lawn. You don’t want dandelions in your yard, so you kill them. You’re not trying to wipe out all dandelions; only the ones that are where they ‘don’t belong’.
One thing that is important to our species is harmony, also known as the principle of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. There are disruptions that would occur if we let certain invasive species continue. If extirpating a species from where it is not native to will enable the environment to continue more or less like it was before, that is a good thing on balance, all other things being equal. Heck, even well-meaning changes often carry unexpected consequences where the ecosystem is disrupted to the point that the economic damage is worse than the benefit the introduced species provided.
There are certain segments of the population that would oppose invasive species on principle. But when the disruptions rise above the level of theory and philosophy into the practical (i.e. destroying fishing), then that’s when there is enough political support to take action. I would contend that even if that change were “natural”, there would be a debate between those who want nature to take its course and those who want the ecosystem to remain as it is for its continuing economic benefits.
But this is not, so there is not really a debate as to the desirability, just to the cost.
Simple-we need to get people to eat carp!
I never have-my BIL has (its a traditional Christmas dinner fare in Czechoslovakia).
he isn’t too enthusiastic a carp-eater, though.
That being so, why shouldn’t we try to manipulate the ecology towards what is in our best interests? That might include getting rid of certain species, or bringing in other species.
Some people want to eliminate Asiatic carp because they want to be able to fish for other species, species that can’t compete with Asian carp. Is it OK to manipulate the ecology to make the fishing better? What if another species of fish is threatened with extinction by competition from Asian carp, and we don’t want that other species to go extinct- is it OK to try to get rid of the carp then?
Bolding in quote mine.
This is a silly way to justify human action against a species. There simply is no such thing as ‘doesn’t belong in an area’. It’s ridiculous.
I just want it stated by those who believe in pushing them out that it is because it doesn’t fit our plan. See, it doesn’t work for us humans. Don’t tell me it’s because it is in the interest of nature or the ecology.
Whatever we do won’t be right or wrong by nature or the ecology of a region because it is all right (well, neutral might be more accurate). There are no rules/plans/guidelines. Nature got itself into this situation.
It can/will be right or wrong according to our terms/needs/wants.
So, myself and Anne aren’t good enough for you?
I disagree Philster. Humans have a unique control over the environment and a unique ability to change it faster than the environment can adapt. We will very quickly eliminate important biodiversity if we continue transporting species around the world. No other animal can do that. That is why humans are different.
The problem is that nature didn’t get itself into this situation regarding the Asian Carp and the US. Humans did. This thread is focused on undoing what we have already messed up, not eliminating a species off of the face of the planet.
What JXJohns said.
The question is about undoing damage we’ve done; not making a species go extinct.
Apologies, for the inane question but… Humans are somehow excluded from nature? If I take my boat to the Atlantic one day, then trailer it and drop it in some other body of water and bring in some different species of mussels that overtakes the area, that is a natural process.
I am for whatever the hell we decide is right… or better worded, for whatever is in the best interest of humans. I am all for manipulating the environment to my/our benefit. Just don’t throw me lines about it being the right thing to do for the ecosystem; or correcting something back to a more natural state or removing something that ‘doesn’t belong there’.
Humans are part of the environment. So is fire. Fire can do things faster than humans. So can tsunamis, earthquakes and hurricanes. Insects can do things faster than humans, too, like eat an entire county out of its oak trees in one season.
.
We need to make these changes and revisions to make things better for ourselves, Philster. We have the ability to change things both inadvertently and by intent. When we do something that results in harm, we should try to fix it.
I want Asian Carp to stay out of Lake Michigan because I don’t want them smacking me in the head when I’m swimming in it, and displacing all those tasty perch.
OK. It bothers me a bit, too, when people say they’re “saving the environment” and they’re really trying to keep the environment the way we humans like it.
But you should acknowledge that humans eliminating Species A from an environment might be in the interest of a third species, Species B. Maybe B has trouble competing with A, or maybe A somehow changes the environment to make it less favorable for B. We’re modifying the environment to fit our plan there, but one of our goals might be to not have species B go extinct.
Should it matter if species A is native to the area or not? It generally doesn’t, when species A is something economically valuable to us and species B isn’t, or vice versa. We protect our non-native cash crops from native pests, for example. How is that different from eliminating Asian Carp from the Great Lakes because they threaten the fishing and tourism industries there?
I’m sorry, but just because both economic and environmental concerns happen to coincide on this one issue does not mean I would turn a blind eye on another issue. I think your brand of nihilistic environmentalism is terrifically short sighted, but I am not here to debate your philosophy. I have nothing to concede, because you haven’t demonstrated any conflict in my belief system.
This quote comes to mind 
I want the carp in question gone. I want certain aggressive (that you might call ‘invasive’) crabs gone from the Delaware and Chessie bays, because they threaten the existence of the blue crab. I want them all gone. I want them gone to serve my immediate need for blue crabs.
If the ‘invasive’ crabs completely wipe out the blue crabs, this will not be an ecological wrong, it’ll be a wrong against my self interests.
But don’t give me some nonsense about how these Carp are bad for the ecosystem. The ecosystem is whatever it happens to be. If it is dominated in an area by Carp that used to dominate another area, that is not bad. Where is the master ecosystem plan that everyone has access to?
The one that’s worked for thousands of years if not more previously. You might feel okay about rolling the dice that the new ecosystem will be as good or better for the economy and human health but not everyone is.
If there are no negative consequences to humans you don’t really see people up in arms about it as much. For instance I’ve never met anyone suggesting extirpation of the coyote from the areas in the Eastern US is has spread to in the last century. (I mean I’m sure there are people like that on the web, the web’s a big truckload of information.)
Ludovic, the point is that some people give a ‘thumbs up’ to certain actions because those actions are ‘good for the ecosystem’, when in fact there is no good or bad for the ecosystem. “Eliminate the Carp from X river = good for the ecosystem!”
No, it really is “Eliminate the Carp from X river because it appears that doing so is beneficial to me for recreational purposes, and to others because of economic reasons.”
The Carp are part of the ecosystem. The ecosystem has no plan or ground rules that are being violated or ‘invaded’. So, we can all stop playing the “help the environment” game and play the “Me hate carp and thinks fisherman who lose money because of them hate them, too!. Get rid of 'em!” game.