Slight nitpick - E. lambei , but yeah, that was my understanding.
Bees, I understand. Why do we need mosquitos?
They’re a food source for fish & birds and they are pollinators. Not at all to the extent bees are, but useful.
Hell, if we got rid of every bloodsucking disease-carrying insect …we wouldn’t have chocolate, for one thing.
I’m not saying mosquitoes are indispensable, or just making an appeal to consequences, but pointing out they’re not completely negative. Whereas the actual malarial parasite can go, without any real negative consequences. Maybe a mini-population explosion in malarial areas?
Oh you silly Don Quixotes, wasting our money on a foolish and doomed quest…
So no defence of the bullshit “all or none” statement? That’s real convincing.
Defend it against what? Did I miss a substantive challenge to the assertion? All I saw is “it’s bullshit” and “it’s *utter *bullshit”. On the SDMB of all places, that doesn’t even *count *as a challenge. What were you expecting? “Nuh uh”? “Saying it’s bullshit is bullshit”? Something along those lines? Okay, stipulated. :rolleyes:
Bullshit is a technical term.
Challenge to your assertion? Don’t make me laugh. You didn’t actually bring up anything to back your assertion, so I gave it all the challenge your level of citation requires. You’ve added nothing new, just some bullshit definition of “invasive” that is at odds with how its defined by ecologists and been used in the thread up to now.
So why act as though you had delivered some devastating critique which I was unable to rebut? You say my position is b*******, George Carlin and I say yours is b*******. That does not seem like it requires anything further.
I am curious though to hear about these species which have always existed in the same range since time immemorial. They apparently have never ever expanded their territory and disrupted the new area insofar as the ecological niche they inhabit. That sounds interesting, so please tell me more.
Regarding invasive plants: the tumbleweed came to the USA from Russia. it now is found around the USA-has it caused serious damage?
Think of how much nicer Westerns would look without them. 
As an example of the dangers of invasive species, Buffle Grass is an Old World species that was brought to Arizona about 80 years ago as a possible forage plant.
Unfortunately it outcompetes the local grasses, herbs, and shrubs as it can outcompete them for water and nutrients.
Briefly, it replaces nearly all of the native vegetation, and uses up the resources of the soil. It then dies, leaving only a ravages and nearly sterile landscape. Please note that this includes all of the native animals as they have lost their food supplies, and habit for shelter, reproduction and so forth. And of course people can’t use the land for cattle or any other economical pursuits. This one plant can and does collapse entire ecosystems - which we need to survive.
So…not only bad from a scientific point of view, ethical point of view (for many), but also a human economics point of view. No one wins. This goes beyond a political viewpoint.
Please see the site below for more info.
http://www.desertmuseum.org/invaders/invaders_buffelgrass.php
Sounds like a justifiable case for intervention. But in the vast majority of cases where lots of money is spent on trying to eliminate so-called invasive species, the only reason given is that they are outcompeting native species. Not that they are wiping out the landscape and then dying off themselves.
Anyway, if the buffalo grass is dying out itself in the end, it should be a lot easier to deal with. Just wait until it is all dead, and then go back and and reseed with the species you want.
Because I (and others) did. Only, we did it more than a year ago. Your belated response added nothing new - it’s almost like you forgot how wrong you’d been a last year, and the paucity of your argument…
This would be true iff that was your or my first post to this thread.
Oh, you mean the species made of straw? :dubious:
I have not reread the thread, if that’s what you’re after. I am treating it as “the title speaks for itself, and then there’s whatever we posted this week”.
:smack:
So you’re going to ignore the complete destruction of your arguments last year? That’s some kind of Gish Gallop record…
I’ll tell you what’s not serious: the notion that tumbleweeds are an un-American scourge. I mean, c’mon: what’s next? We say something is “as American as apple pie”, but apples are not native to North America. So I guess Johnny Appleseed is now history’s greatest monster? Or maybe it’s William Blaxton. :rolleyes:
I’m willing to go back to the top of this page (Page 6) but life is too short to reread the whole thread. And I stand by what I wrote up top:
You can’t really “refute” this argument. Something a lot of people, on both the left and right, have a hard time understanding is that politics is about preferences. You can’t “prove” whether it’s good or bad, for instance, to have a steep inheritance tax (I prefer it, while others denounce it as a “death tax” or “double taxation”). Similarly, I prefer what I stated in the quote above. I will support or oppose candidates and referenda, and lobby government officials, accordingly. You can choose a different path, although if your South Africa location is also indicative of your citizenship, you don’t have the right to do those things vis-a-vis U.S. law.
A thread you started? That’s responsibility!
No, because it’s made of straw.
And I haven’t been arguing against whatever regulatory responses you choose from your wrong information, I’ve been arguing that the original premises are themselves wrong. You’re wrong about what an invasive species actually is, so any ideas you develop from that in response are going to be unfounded from the get-go.
Ah, so you are really just into some sort of semantic nitpick. How boring.