Are horses exotic or native if they evolved in North America and then subsequently reintroduced? ====================================== Randy Bangert
On May 12, 2010, at 3:56 PM, James J. Roper wrote: > 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. >>>> >>> >>
