Unfortunately, many do not want (care) to know "how it is working", which contributes to "ridiculously futile managerial adjustments."
Steve ........................................... Stephen L. Young, PhD Weed Ecologist University of Nebraska-Lincoln http://ipcourse.unl.edu/iwep Twitter: @NAIPSC -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Merits of invasion science And, the only way to prevent it, is to know how it happens. And, the only way to correct it (if possible), is to study how it is currently working. This is true of so many things. On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:49 AM, David L. McNeely <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > Miles, "When will we we learn to just leave things alone?" > > Had we left things alone in the first place, there would be no invasions. > You can't have it both ways. So, if you want things left alone, then you > don't do the things that bring about invasions -- you don't start aviation > activities that move snakes about, for example. But if you did not leave > things alone, then you have an obligation to do your best to prevent > consequences, monitor what is going on, and fix things where appropriate. > > Not doing anything after the fact, or not doing anything to prevent > consequences neither one constitutes leaving things alone. > > David McNeely > > ---- "Thomas J. Givnish" <givn...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote: >> Miles - "ridiculously futile managerial adjustments"? "often make more of a >> mess by trying to set things straight"? "sentimental nostalgia"?? "nature >> will adjust, with or without us"??? >> >> Are you kidding us? >> >> >> Are you saying that, if a brown tree snake appears on the tarmac at Honolulu >> (it's happened several times already), we shouldn't do anything about it? >> Are you saying that you aren't willing to judge whether, say, the >> introduction of the emerald ash borer or the balsam wooly adelgid were or >> were not "good for the ecology"? >> >> >> Thomas J. Givnish >> Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin >> >> givn...@wisc.edu >> http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html >> >> >> >> >> On 10/29/13, Miles Medina wrote: >> > I don't think the question is whether invasives are a problem. The >> > criticisms the article raises are rather easily refuted. Sure, >> > invasives are a problem for industry or national security (i.e. our >> > species), and if we are generous perhaps for the integrity of some >> > ecological system as we understand it. But who is to judge what is >> > "good for the ecology"? Or is it more often just some sentimental >> > nostalgia? My point is that whether we claim the motivation to >> > control invasives is selfless preservationism or reduce it to >> > economic loss or other self-interest, it is ultimately >> > anthropocentric, because our management actions rely on our own >> > limited data and understanding of ecology and are given direction >> > by our own limited judgments about what is best for some natural >> > system. The truth is, nature will adjust with or without us, and >> > life will go on. Perhaps our efforts would be better spent figuring >> > out how to better conduct our civilization than on making >> > ridiculously futile managerial adjustments. The real question to my mind >> > is whether we should continue on such a path knowing we so often make more >> > of a mess by trying to set things straight. >> > Reading the authors' justification for invasive management reminded >> > me of Bush the administration rallying support for the Iraq war.. >> > What we already know is scary, so imagine how terrifying the uknown >> > unknowns might be! When will we learn to just leave things alone? >> > >> > Miles >> > On Oct 28, 2013 11:54 AM, "lisa jones" <lajone...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > A quick and interesting editorial piece from Richardson & >> > > Ricciardi "Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field >> > > guide" in Diversity and Distributions (2013, 19: 1461-1467). >> > > >> > > A link to the article can be found here on the Canadian Aquatic >> > > Invasive Species Network (CAISN) website (listed near the bottom of the >> > > page): >> > > http://www.caisn.ca/en/publications >> > > >> > > I am sure there will be a response from those who see no value in >> > > invasion science but as one reviewer pointed out "when invasions >> > > are driven by us (ballast waters, trade, aquaculture, you name >> > > it) and overcome wide ecological barriers... well, I would be >> > > very careful in saying that there is no problem." >> > > >> > > Lisa >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> -- > > -- > David McNeely -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Environmental Studies University of Illinois at Springfield Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
