And don’t get hung up on the LawnWorld metaphor, that’s just rhetorical exaggeration. The point is very large reductions in biodiversity - you can’t seriously consider a lawn with tiny insects and bugs the equivalent of a forest or scrubland, in terms of diversity?
It seriously depends what colonises first. Disturbed ground can get quite monocultural, yes - and even the later mature successors are not as diverse as they would have been had succession been natural.
The point is the species we don’t know about yet
Yes, it is.
Hey, usually we did the introduction in the first place, so it’s entirely our say-say if we want to undo that, as well, I think.
Cite? I only know of the ones who are actually concerned about detrimental effects on the native ecosystems, not the ones who want “primeval perfection”
No. On a small island, and dealing with creatures that are large and conspicuous enough to capture or exterminate relatively easily, go for it. Where it bothers me is when it involves a much larger area and/or a much smaller and less conspicuous life form. When we start inspecting everyone’s luggage and their vehicle’s trunks at traffic checkpoints, we’re intruding on civil liberties in a way I’m not comfortable with; and when we spend significant sums on the effort from the public treasury, we are misappropriating tax dollars IMO.
All righty, then: I’ll just feel free to ignore your vague and nebulous “critique”.
My point is that although the examples several people have given here have related to organisms that are harmful or bothersome to humans, there are also scientists who fight to remove invasive species from ecosystems even though the average schmoe would never notice the difference, just because the scientists want to, as you say, prevent “detrimental effects on the native ecosystems”. The difference between that and what I said is entirely one of framing, IMO. I scoff at these efforts, so I dismissively characterise them as “trying to return it to some imagined primeval perfection”; but I’m still referring to the same thing you are describing as being “about detrimental effects on the native ecosystems”. Thus a cite would not resolve anything, as it’s fundamentally a semantic dispute.
One example I can think of where scientists are trying to restore an ecosystem, even though most humans who live in the area prefer it “unrestored”, is the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone. This is slightly different, because we’re not talking about eradicating an invasive species, but rather about restoring one that was native and was previously eradicated by humans. It seems like it’s in the same general ballpark though in terms of it involving scientists and bureaucrats tinkering with an ecosystem to try to make it “the way it used to be”.
Now, I personally like wolves, and I think it’s kind of cool to have them back in Yellowstone. But I wonder about the logic of using examples like the stinkbug and the coqui frog upthread. Seems like it could introduce a slippery slope, or maybe the better term is “double-edged sword”. If the primary justification for eliminating invasive species is that humans don’t like having them around, couldn’t this be used to justify eliminating *native *species too, the way wolves were a century ago? Suddenly the spotted owl would have to feel a lot less comfortable with all those loggers around; and there’s a lot of the Everglades where people would feel much more comfortable if they drained off all that nasty swampland and got rid of the scary alligators so they could build some nice, generic subdivisions.
Been there, done that, and frankly we’ve lost the shirt. Subdivisions don’t filter water or recharge the aquifer. St. Augustine grass lawns with chinch bugs are a far less diverse ecosystem than historic Everglades and provide (biological benefits aside) none of the aesthetic or emotional rewards of natural ecosystems.
We have a plethora of invasive exotics here, plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Even draining the swamp won’t rid us of most of them. In fact, some (Melaleuca, for instance) were brought here specifically to help dry up that noxious swamp. All invasives are characterized by their ability to overwhelm the natural communities, leading to monocultures of invasives. Some of these invasions are indeed a lost cause (e.g., Schinus, *Cichlasoma *sp.) while we have won the battle with others (Gambain pouched rat comes to mind). How this effort can be characterized as having anything to do with “intruding on civil liberties in a way I’m not comfortable with” is beyond me.
No, I meant what I said: based on your statement, we are talking about the same thing and just framing it differently. But fine, here’s a cite. The only mention of impact on humans is a positive one: the presence of pythons means people are not getting harassed by raccoons any more. (Hmmm…as someone who has been frustrated for years now by raccoons literally infesting my walls, these pythons sound mighty appealing, LOL.) Clearly the effort to eradicate the python is all about some intrinsic idea of protecting native species, not anything about effects on humans.
CannyDan, did you miss the point of what I posted there? Kind of seems like it from your response. I was saying that draining the swamp would be a *bad *thing. All along I’ve been saying that I don’t like it when wild green space is taken over by urban sprawl (or converted to farmland for that matter). But I also don’t favour expensive or authoritarian efforts to control what exactly happens within that wild green space.
I don’t know whether “this” effort can be characterised that way; but California border stations infringe on civil liberties IMO:
So, great: you don’t have to submit to this warrantless search, as long as you’re willing to turn back and not enter the freaking entire state of California. Not my idea of “voluntary”.
You either must be kidding, or you’re sadly misinformed. While there really isn’t a measurable chance of a python eating your toddler, and even if I allow you to hand wave away their effect on native wildlife (mammals in particular but also endangered species including wood storks), they certainly eat domestic livestock and companion animals. This is hardly a positive effect on the people who own and/or care for those animals.
So you think draining the swamp is a bad idea, but accepting it turning into a solid, impenetrable forest of exotic vegetation that no native animal (ranging from insect through bird to mammal) can eat, nest in, or shelter under would be OK because it remains “wild green space”. Sorry, my mileage does vary.
Oh, you can enter, all right. But you can’t bring your baggage, unless you submit it to inspection. Same for your car. But you yourself won’t be excluded. The USDA does pretty much the same thing at US points of entry. I worked for a time as a state ag official and spent a good deal of time at the USDA facility in Miami. You should see the stuff people think will be “cute” or “precious” to sneak in (like the Gambian pouched rats mentioned above), or the things they think will be lucrative, like the two dozen baby eyelash vipers (yes, that means highly venomous snakes) secreted in socks and dirty laundry in a duffel bag, as well as the accidental stuff, including Mediterranean fruit fly larva (which could devastate billions of dollars worth of agricultural production if established here) in the bag of fruit they’re carrying. The civil liberties of travelers that you seem so desperate to protect must be balanced against the civil liberties of huge numbers of people whose livelihoods, and even the food on whose tables, depends on preventing establishment of exotic invaders.
Note even your own first cite concludes:
In your second cite, Tomas Carlo pleads a special case for a limited number of introduced species. He offers a silly argument about nature being always in a state of flux, so introductions by humans should be, if not welcomed, at least accepted as biologically normal. He claims that “not all of these relationships are bad just because they are novel or created by humans” but he has trouble pulling out of his ass more than a couple of possibly relevant examples. I reject his conclusion.
There’s a huge difference between entering the country and crossing state lines. I don’t have an expectation of protection against warrantless search and seizure when crossing an international border (though that is certainly a pain, as I’ve been subjected numerous times to extensive and lengthy searches when crossing the Canadian border, about equally btw from each side). I also don’t have an expectation of privacy when travelling by air. So that negates all your Miami examples, I’d think.
When I travel within the U.S., by car (I don’t have a car now but have in the past, and may again in the future), I do have such an expectation and I mightily resent having it violated by these “border stations”. And yeah, pretty good joke: I can just step out of my car (which will presumably then be towed to an impound lot, right?) and leave my luggage behind, then hoof it through the desert to get to my destination. Sounds great.
ETA:
What’s “silly” about that argument? Just saying it’s silly doesn’t make it so.
Negates my Miami examples of noxious invasive exotics brought into a port of entry preparatory to being carried from there into any of the contiguous states? Often, I’m sure, by car? Perhaps ‘negates’ doesn’t mean what you think it means.
When you “travel within the U.S., by car” you are subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the various states. That’s a part of “state’s rights” in the common vernacular. Some of those states have decided that their best interests are served by restricting the movement of agricultural products (meaning everything from livestock to apples to potted plants) into the state. Some states care less. Since your example was California, I’ll note that in 2004 CA’s total annual agricultural receipts (cite) was just short of 32 billion dollars. That ranks it number one in the nation. Only three states border CA, so you must have been crossing from Oregon, ranked 27th at under $4 billion or Arizona, ranked 29th at $3 billion, or Nevada, ranked 45th at half a billion dollars. Since none of those states share CA’s climate and none even approach the value of its agricultural production, I am hardly surprised that CA takes a harder line on protecting itself from economic devastation by invasion of exotic pests than its neighbors.
And those figures for the agricultural value put at risk are aside from any other economic repercussions caused by invasive exotics, like the *Schinus *(“Brazilian Pepper Tree”) that has taken over every uncultivated field or roadside throughout Florida. Removal costs exceed tens of millions of dollars a year, mostly to keep it from blocking signs, sight paths, or flood control ditches. These economic costs though are not strictly agricultural, so would not be accounted for as an agricultural disaster. But I consider their economic impact a disaster in its own right nonetheless. Other examples abound. The direct costs to humans from invasive exotics are enormous, even if those exotics don’t actually kill people. (And let’s not mention Africanized bees or Lionfish, OK?)
Carlo’s argument is silly in that it is facile and superficial. Yes, nature is always readjusting, and yes, by definition humans are part of nature, so changes caused by humans are a part of nature and are not necessarily bad. It reads like a children’s book. But he is unable to offer a single instance of invasive exotics providing a demonstrable benefit. The fact that fruit eating birds have increased in number (his assertion) does not prove that this effect is actually caused by the presence of exotic fruits. Perhaps predatory species have been reduced, or nesting opportunities have been increased, or other local factors are actually causal. And even if the increase is due to the presence of exotic fruits, is this actually beneficial to the ecosystem, or to people? No evidence is offered, just a feel-good assertion that maybe, just maybe, things aren’t going to hell in a handbasket quite so fast as we thought.
And his assertion that “Invasive species could fill niches in degraded ecosystems and help restore native biodiversity in an inexpensive and self-organized way” is pure, unadulterated bullshit. You can’t, by definition alone, restore native biodiversity by introducing a non-native species. Even very similar species are dramatically different on close analysis. That’s what it means to be different species. And different species don’t just slip into or out of each others’ niches like swapping clothes with your friend. To suggest that is to demonstrate a shockingly simplistic view of biology.
MrDibble, I don’t really care about this argument, but you seem to be awfully emotional and personal over this. Moreover, I find it hard to take your arguments seriously when they begin thus…
That’s ridiculous. The moment you say that something is good or bad, you have left the world of Science entirely. And trying to claim the halo fo science and logic in rather silly, since you’re making an emptional judgement call, which may be right or wrong, but is never scientific or logical.
Good point about “good or bad” and science and logic, smiling bandit.
I’d say it looks more like you don’t understand what it means. The “port of entry” part is the key. As I said, when you are bringing stuff in from out of country, you don’t have any protection against warrantless searches. Purely domestic travel is another matter entirely, or should be.
States’ rights are trumped, much as many conservatives and libertarians would wish otherwise, by the Constitution. And the Fourth Amendment says you need a warrant or probable cause of a crime in progress to search me or my vehicle. The Supreme Court has even extended that to disallowing GPS trackers to be attached to cars. I don’t know if they have ruled on these checkpoints but if they haven’t, I have to wonder if they would pass constitutional muster and if so, on what grounds.
Blake, I’m glad you understood my point, even if you took the circuitous route of supposing I wasn’t making it.
It seems a kind of madness. It’s ok if one kind of disease wipes out some class of trees in an area, so long as it wasn’t introduced by humans? Blech. Either we’re going to save trees we like from things killing them or not. Mucking around with vague notions of “nature” is crazy talk.
So, after demonstrating that your understanding of biology, ecology, and evolution (“survival of the fittest”) is in error, you drop that argument and proceed to make legal quibbles instead. But here again your understanding is erroneous. The SCOTUS didn’t disallow GPS trackers at all, although it ruled their deployment would be subject to the same requirement for a warrant as other forms of involuntary search (cite US v Jones – warning, PDF). But state agricultural inspections aren’t involuntary searches, warrantless or otherwise. Since you seem particularly upset at your California experience, here’s a cite.
As I said upthread, whereat you scoffed, you are free to walk past the ag inspection station and refuse inspection (unless an inspector decides that your clothing itself may conceal contraband :D) but neither your vehicle nor your “commodities” will be allowed to enter “until released by an inspector”.
I’m not going to bother to look up any history of challenges to this legal authority, nor whatever court decisions ratified its enforceability. Suffice it to note that California and virtually every other state has some form of this system in place to defend against noxious invasive exotic species. So to your question of whether such “would pass constitutional muster” I’ll have to conclude that the evidence clearly answers yes, yes it does.
If you now wish to fall back on your statement ending the first paragraph of your above quote, about what “should be”, I’ll respectfully suggest that you may instead wish to invoke the first rule of holes.
I don’t agree at all that my understanding of biology, ecology, and evolution is in error. Every species in every niche of every ecosystem is there essentially because it has (at least so far) demonstrated sufficient evolutionary fitness to be there; and every species that has disappeared from an ecosystem or gone extinct has done so because of a lack of said evolutionary fitness. I’d be shocked if, say, Richard Dawkins would disagree with that.
And it is you, not I, who are making “legal quibbles”. You are taking the position that since it has not as of now been struck down by the Supreme Court, it is, ipso facto, not a violation of civil liberties. I am arguing that it is a violation of civil liberties even if the Court has failed as of yet to recognise it as such. My position is the more idealistic and forward-looking one, similar to that of a proponent of racial desegregation between 1892 and 1954, or of an opponent of sodomy laws between 1986 and 2003.
BTW, it’s interesting in light of my feeling that you are misreading or mischaracterising my posts, to note that I never said I tried to cross into California and ran into one of these checkpoints. In fact, I never have done so. I hadn’t even known specifically about them until discovering their existence via Google earlier this week, just before I mentioned them on this thread (based on a more vague idea that I had read or heard somewhere that cars were being searched somewhere or other without warrants, based on this “invasive species” threatmongering).
ETA: Speaking of misreading and/or mischaracterising, I think it should be obvious that my mention of the GPS ruling did not imply that they could not be attached even with a warrant. I had mentioned warrants in the sentence immediately preceding that one–come on.
Also, “Canny”, did you seriously not notice that your “cite” on the legality of these searches was the same link, and same quote from the link, that I already posted upthread? WTF? It’s like “oh yeah, thanks for the info!” LOL
ETA: erislover, I overlooked your short post between mine and Canny’s the first time scrolling down. Obviously I agree wholeheartedly, well said.
:rolleyes: Oh, noes, I’m not an emotionless robot. Clearly my argument is worthless…
oh, wait, no, that’s the ad hominem fallacy.
Firstly, rubbish. Just absolutely, weirdly prescriptivist rubbish. Science is not some abstract concept divorced from its human factor. Science is perfectly capable of passing value judgements - scientists do it all the fucking time, and scientists are science.
Secondly, I didn’t say it was scientific to call things good or bad, I specifically said that’s a philosophical call. But you can’t divorce science and philosophy that easily - the philosophy part is “a healthier ecosystem is more desirable than a less healthy one”, and the science is “invasives make an ecosystem less healthy” and that’s the link.
Pffft. Another person who confuses one of many Scientific Methods for Science. Somewhere Feyerabend is spinning in his grave.
That cite is full of Carlo’s ideas on what some other scientists may think about “pristine state”, but doesn’t actually quote any of them saying it. In other words, he’s attacking the same strawman you are.
Is this an ad hominem against me? I just don’t see any other way to interpret the shortening of my username and the scare quotes. I haven’t demeaned you by calling you “Slacker” no matter what I think of your arguments. I’m not reporting it, but I don’t think that is called for.
As for it being the same cite, yes it is. Given that your only answer for it was to complain that you just didn’t like it, and suggest that somewhere, somehow, sometime it might be removed by court action, I thought perhaps it required repeating.
You don’t like ag inspection rules and you argue for what you wish to be rather than what is. That’s fine, but it does nothing to change the reality that these rules are the law of the land. Laws are presumed to be Constitutional unless and until overturned. Rules similar to California’s are in effect in every state, and there seems to be no credible legal challenge to any of them, despite your frustrated desires. So whinging on about them is moot, and comparing them to issues like mandated segregation and repressive “blue laws” is just plain insulting to genuine victims of those great injustices. And if you were not personally affected by CA inspection, I’m sorry for misunderstanding your bringing it up. But pointing that out does nothing to defeat the explanation I provided for CA’s promulgating those rules in the first place.
Shall we drop the hijack now and get back to your misunderstanding of biology? You state above that “every species that has disappeared from an ecosystem or gone extinct has done so because of a lack of said evolutionary fitness” but this is total bullshit. Passenger Pigeons are extinct because their “evolutionary fitness” didn’t encompass resistance to market hunting and torching of roosting aggregations of birds? Likewise the Dodo, extirpated because it lacked evolutionary resistance to gunfire to satisfy the appetites of seafarers? Total nonsense.
And the fact that the introduced Monk Parakeet seems to be successfully expanding its range into much of the geographic area once occupied by the extinct Carolina Parakeet does not demonstrate that it is somehow more fit. More fit than what? Than a species that is no longer present?
If you meant it is difficult to demonstrate that an invasive species has exclusively and without any additional contributing factor brought about the extinction of a native species, you’d be closer to the truth. Zebra mussels in the Great Lakes are the classic case often cited. Numerous species of mollusks (as well as unrelated organisms) have been decimated since the Zebra invasion. However, extinction of the totality of any species probably has not occurred, since a few small relict populations seem to be hanging on in isolated locations. And of course additional factors including general pollution certainly caused some diminution of some populations even before the Zebras came. So if we are going to require totality as a necessary condition, we probably haven’t achieved extinction – yet. But ecologists quite reasonably argue that we should be paying greater attention to locally defined populations. And at this level the fact that multiple species of organisms have been replaced, indeed literally buried, by a single species of invasive exotic certainly is the very poster child for loss of diversity, and only by a technicality falls a nanometer short of multiple extinctions.
Evolution, although usually long term in its effects, can also be surprisingly swift (see beak shapes in Galapagos finches). But evolutionary change is always in context. Climate change is slow, competition comes from the same species that a given organism has competed with for protracted, even geological, time periods. Selective pressures act upon the standing variation, sometimes over time changing “what was” into “what is”. And sometimes, if insufficient variation exists to accommodate exogenous change occurring around the species (climate changes, and other species are evolving too) then a species becomes extinct. But introducing an exotic species at the hand of man is like shooting a bullet to the head and saying “There, evolve to that!” Or like an asteroid to the Yucatan. Yes evolution will continue. But it will continue around this special effect, not in context with it, eventually – perhaps after a geologic time period – incorporating it into a new context.
Blake schooled you in biology starting in Post 14 and subsequent, and MrDibble too has offered contributions toward your edification. So did a few others, although they seem to have given up. Perhaps you should avail yourself of their efforts by going back and re-reading their posts. Your understanding of biology would benefit.
Dawkins is a cool dude, we can both agree on that.
I get the feeling that your science background is a successful high school career combined with some supplementary reading since. I commend you for remaining interested in the subject! However, Dawkins’ books aren’t good reference when it comes to ecology; his focus generally is more on evolution or cellular biology. That you would use him as an appeal to authority demonstrates just how underwater you really are on the topic of conservation.
I don’t mean to be belittling, but at this point in the thread it appears you aren’t trying to learn anything. Instead you are making an argument for your own worldview. Being that your background in ecology is minimal, you have little of interest to add to the topic. These arguments took place 70 years ago. The conclusion? Biodiversity = Desirable. Disputing this is comically ignorant.
Invasive species have a history of reducing biodiversity, and thus are a management concern. There’s not a whole lot more to it, unless you want to be a goof and get into circular arguments about the natural state. However, that conversation is better suited to a bong hit interlude.
