Good question Martin, But, yes, I would remove all of those from any and all natural settings, and keep them on farms, just like you suggested. As for the animals, they are massive conservation problems in their own rights, so I won't go into why we should all be vegetarian - :-|
As you say, keep them from running wild. Which reminds me, have any of you seen those pictures of the record sized boars (domestic pigs) that were shot in Georgia a few years ago? Those are certainly an ecological disaster! Cheers, Jim On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 13:57, Martin Meiss <mme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Really, Mr. Roper (the formality is to avoid confusion between the two > Jims)? You would favor removal of such exotics from North America as wheat, > apples, oranges, horses, cattle, goats, pigs, and honeybees? Wouldn't you > settle for trying to keep them from running wild, rather than eliminating > them from farmland because they are exotic? > Martin > > > 2010/5/12 James J. Roper <jjro...@gmail.com> > > Jim, >> >> I hope my (perhaps) subtle tongue in cheek comments about invasives has >> not confused the issue. I completely agree that human caused introductions >> are to be avoided at all costs, and active eradication of exotics should be >> undertaken as a default position until a well-developed argument suggests >> otherwise. >> >> As Elton documented long ago, invasives are problems, both ecologically >> and financially. States and countries spends billions of dollars each year >> trying to control many exotics. While I think that we can find examples for >> both, innocuous exotics and maladapted natives, those examples do not >> support any position taken on exotics. >> >> I would also venture to state that even if statistical tests could not >> identify an exotic, that does NOT mean the exotic is inconsequential. I >> think in this case, we should assume guilty until proven innocent. After >> all, nature took millions of years to come up with what we have today, while >> we can screw that up in less than a decade. We do not have the information >> required to decide whether an exotic "matters" in some philosophical moral >> sense. We should assume that it is a problem, however, as the best default >> position - avoid introductions at all costs, eradicate when possible. If >> we use a moral position, that position can be argued endlessly. If we use a >> pragmatic position - introductions are uncontrolled experiments and >> uncontrolled experiments should always be avoided because we cannot know how >> to predict the outcome (and much less control it) - then until someone can >> really show how great uncontolled experiments are, no argument will be >> effective against it. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Jim >> >> James Crants wrote on 12-May-10 13:02: >> >> Jim and others, >>> Your last sentence converges on the point I was trying to make: if you >>> compared native species, as a group, against exotic species, as a group, you >>> would find statistically significant ecological differences (ie, trends), >>> even though you would also find numerous exceptions to those trends. A >>> statistically significant trend is not negated by the existence of outliers, >>> any more than the tendency for men to be taller than women is negated by the >>> fact that many women are taller than many men. >>> >> >
