In no particular order, (but the first and last are most important):
[li] Learn more about bats[/li]- check you local library for some excellent refernce books.
contact your state wildlife organization to find what types of bats are found in your area.
learn what types of foods they eat (some are insectivores, others are frugivores).
[li] Join and support a bat conservation organization - click on “links” for LOTS of information.[/li][li] Set up bat houses to attract bats that are native to the area.[/li][li] Close up holes and other possible entry ways in your house so bats do not nest in your house (really nasty if they (or any other animal) die in your attic).[/li][li] Educate your neighbors about bats.[/li][li] If there bats roosting in caves, leave them alone!!! - disturbing them, especially during hibernation and raising young, can use up a lot of their stored energy vital for survival.[/li][li] Landscape your yard to be more bat and bird friendly - fruit trees attract insects which attract many birds and bats.[/li][li] Limit or discontinue the use of pesticides in your yard and neighborhood - it doesn’t take much to affect a significant part of the food web.[/li] Educate yourself about bats.
Probably true. I’d add that we wouldn’t even know what that effect would be. Exactly how sturdy is the “food web”? Are there keystone species (or phylum/class/order/family/genus)? Is there some critical threshold in diversity? Or can we pluck away at will?
Yet another one of our uncontrolled experiments on the environment.
damnit, how does this soapbox keep appearing under my feet?!?
We have messed up the pacific form of “paradise” by the introduction of non-native species (mosquitoes, rats, ants, snakes, etc.). Getting rid of them would be neat–but how?
I’m not so sure. The biosphere is remarkably resilient. Mass extinctions have occurred several times, wiping out 99% of all species that have ever existed.
In the short term, the ecosystem may get bent out of shape a little, but over the long haul it’ll stabilize.
For example, we knocked off the dodo and the passenger pidgeon not long ago, and nothing much happened. Not to mention countless species of plants and insects in the Amazon.
Still, it’s not a good idea to mess with Mother Nature.
Screech-Owl, while the things you mention would reverse the decline in the bat population, they would not result in the population explosion necesary to eradicate mosquitoes. Bats are not only predators, but prey as well. More bats would mean more food for owls.
( I love that Screech Owl is concerned with protecting species that owls eat!)
In the highly unlikely event that bats did eliminate mosquitos, they would face massive starvation. Deprived of a major food source, the bat population would plummet. Eventually, mosquiitos from elsewhere would settle in the area. This would lead to a rise in bats. Eventually, the situation would return to the same bat and mosquito levels it possessed before the attempt to eradite mosquitoes was made.
As far as the extinction of any species, think of it as the parts you have leftover after assembling a bicycle. You don’t know what purpose they serve and you don’t seem to need them. However, the day after you throw them away, the front wheel goes over a pebble and the bicycle falls apart. Before mosquitoes could be rendered extinct, a truly massive, unbelievably costly, exhaustive study of mosquitoes would have to be made. If the mosquito was wiped from the face of the Earth, mnay species of bat would dissappear from the endangered list and follow skeeters into oblivion. The plant species which depend upon bats for polination would follow. Owls and other birds that prey on bats would starve. All thibgs considered, buy some Off.
DocCathode -True, putting up houses would not necessarily create a population explosion of bats to eradicate mosquitoes, but as you said, it would certainly help to reverse declines, and at least keep a better control of the mosquito population.
I don’t believe, however, that the mass extinction of mosquitoes would leave the bats starving, since most of the insectivorous bats would have other food sources (moths, for example), and as you stated owls ( ) would help keep the bat population in check.
Very few animals are stenophagous** (feeding on a single or limited variety of food) - the only examples that come to mind right now are Giant Pandas (bamboo) and the Snail Kite [formerly known as the Everglades Kite] (apple snails). Bats and owls have quite the variety within their respective food sources.
[Screech-owls, for example, will feed on insects, other invertebrates, small birds, amphibians, small reptiles, and small fish. Great-Horned Owls will feed on DNATLLP - Damned Near Anything That Looks Like Prey - including skunks. Trust me - I had to transport a skunked owl: blargh…]
** found this word the other day, and this is the perfect place to use it.
Yup. Eating a mouthful of pesticides in each bite is not fun for any living critter. Remember, everything is something else’s dinner.
Yes, you’re right, and you give great examples. I guess what I am mainly objecting too is **Wild Bill’s ** continuing poorly written insistence on wiping out anything that annoys him…sharks, mountain lions, etc. without a thought to the potential repercussions.
Sure, when things accidentally or naturally disappear from the face of the Earth, humans and other species manage to more or less thrive. If we had no more giant pandas, for instance, how would humans be harmed? However, Bill’s kamikaze notion of giving the axe to everything potentially dangerous or annoying is worthy of an obnoxious pit rant.
Bill’s also not talking about things dying off because their environment disappeared or because of over-hunting or what have you. He’s talking about purposely destroying things to the best of our ability, just for the sake of his convenience. How utterly ridiculous. The level of short-sightedness, selfishness, and stupidity involved in this notion are astounding.
Skeeter babies eats mostly bacterias, molds, and algaes so these baby skeeters keep streams undirty and full health. The fish trout that just now frying in you’re pan eaten thousands of mosquitoes before biting you’re hook. Good tasty meaty fish fed good. Only femail skeeters vampires, mail skeeters don’t drink blood and much fruit trees is pollinated buy the buggers. Need much fruit four best sauce four grilled trout fish. Skeeters much important in river and lake eco system.
I would. And I would kill all the mosquito(e)s(in case that one dictionary is right)too. I don’t care how many frogs starve and I don’t care if Raid goes out of business either.
Secondly,
I can not believe the response this thread has about my use of a new word. Is it wrong to make up a word that fits what you want to say? I mean who says we can’t add a word to the dictionary. Who made up all these stupid English rules in the first place was it my fat ugly English teacher from the fourth grade or what?
All I have to say is if they add “extincted” to the dictionary I want the credit. While they are add it they ought to add “funner” to. Funner sound more fun than more fun does. (did that makes sense) Oh well you know what I mean.
I have heard that while man has caused the extinction of many thousands of species, not one of them has been an insect.
A more realistic question to ask might be whether the eventual extinction of man will have a significant impact on the mosquito. (Probably not unless we manage to take out all of the other higher species first…)
Yes, that’s why we’ve determined this idea to be patently selfish and near-sighted. What about the predator that survives by eating the frog? What about the predator that preys on the frog’s predator? Can you see beyond your own outstretched hand, Bill? Can you even SEE your outstretched hand? Your own personal inconvenience is inconsequential compared to the natural comfort and survival of thousands of creatures who apparently have more brain cells than you possess.
There’s this marvelous invention we have. It’s called OFF. Keeps the skeeters from biting you. If you’re too stupid to figure out how to use it, or even worse, to suggest that extinction of a species is preferable to using bug spray, then getting bitten by skeeters constitutes natural selection in progress.
Secondly, learn to write. While making up words is acceptable in some instances, and can even be clever and amusing, simply slaughtering the language only serves to confuse and annoy. For instance, using “are” instead of “our” makes you look like a damn fool. It’s not cute and it doesn’t constitute an out-dated rule of grammar that only some dusty old bag still teaches. It’s ridiculous and makes your post nearly incomprehensible.
By all means, those bright enough can and do add words to the dictionary quite frequently. However, this luxury generally belongs to those who have a stellar grasp of the language to begin with. Making up words because you don’t know the proper term doesn’t count.
Their are quite a number of insects that have been exterminated by man through land clearing and introduction of predators. This has occured world-wide, though perhaps the most dramatic case has been in New Zealand where something like a quarter of the insect species discovered in litter, peat bogs etc. are now extinct. I suspect that far fewer insects have been exterminated by deliberate effort.
You know what? This was an abomination of a thread from the get-go.
Wildest Bill, if you want a General Answer, ask a General Question. Like, “what would be the ecological impact of the eradication of mosquitoes from the world.” Your “I say kill’em all” schtick guarantess you will get a debate, not facts.
And for Cecil’s sake, please try to clean up your prose before posting. It’s a distraction, as you can see, and it’s annoying as all get-out.
Others, please try to rise above charged language and look for a General Question in this forum. There was one, you know, hidden in there. And not a bad one, at that. Thanks to those who responded to it.
) would help keep the bat population in check.