Jump to content
Suzie

Why is it scientifically acceptable to hunt invasive species to extinction

Recommended Posts

or try to hunt invasive species to extinction?  Doesn't matter if it is carp, in the missisippy or pythons in the everglades or zebra mussels in the great lakes.  For some reason humans seek to exterminate any species that moved into a new zone.  By this standard we should be eliminating the people who drained the everglades and dammed too many rivers exterminating them of native fish species.  So isn't the human the Earths most invasive species and should they be eliminated in order to preserve the ecosystem?  Or are ecosystems designed to change which is the reason that 98 to 99 percent of all species are extinct?

Food for thought as you step on that anthill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're an invasive species that doesn't like other species doing the same and harming us, species we are familiar with or species we derive bennefit from.

Can stymie both natural and unnatural changes in populations. Not sure what a better stance would be to take.

Do we uninvolve ourselves from the wider ecosystem or do we let invasive's take over the planet?

...and for many species we are not that good at control in the first place. Nature laughs at our efforts at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

We're an invasive species that doesn't like other species

Well, theoretically, we moved our selves around the earth. So it was natural. I thought invasive species showed up unnaturally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Well, theoretically, we moved our selves around the earth. So it was natural. I thought invasive species showed up unnaturally?

Any species that isn't 'native' actually counts. Many have hitched a ride with us though. Hard for decent numbers to arrive normally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why is it scientifically acceptable to hunt invasive species to extinction"

It's not, nor can we.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans have effectively been made extinct in a few vulnerable environments by means of legal sanctions.

Unfortunately other invasive species have to be made locally extinct the hard way.

Feral cats on small islands is one example where this can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have we hunted invasive species to extinction? I know we've removed invasive species from the place they've invaded, but that is hardly the same as hunting them to "extinction".

Typically invasive species are removed from an ecosystem because their lack of natural predators in their new environment allows them to do undue harm to the existing and/or desirable ecosystem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carrock said:

Feral cats on small islands is one example where this can be done.

that's a human mistake to be reversed, the OP needs to frame the question properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

that's a human mistake to be reversed, the OP needs to frame the question properly.

What is the proper question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Carrock said:

What is the proper question?

for a start, define invasive species and what it's invading and why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Suzie said:

For some reason humans seek to exterminate any species that moved into a new zone.

I thought they focused on this when the 'invading' species is thought to cause harm to the native wildlife.  Like the bulltoads in Australia that ate other species to extinction or the grey squirrel in the UK that has nearly wiped out the native red; or the rabbits that ate all the crops on some islands...  these species, some that were introduced to fight a problem, sometimes turn out to be worse than the problem they were bought in to solve.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

Any species that isn't 'native' actually counts. Many have hitched a ride with us though. Hard for decent numbers to arrive normally.

Ah, okay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the issue is that we can see the "damage" done by a species we introduced (deliberately or accidentally) and we feel guilty about doing so. So we seek to "put things right".

The OP's question lacks clarity on one vital point.

We may seek to eradicate the introduced species from it's new location but we might, at the same time, be supporting it in its original habitat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PhilGeis said:

Science neither accepts nor rejects hunting or an y other activity.  

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but science seems to have a lot to say about human activities. For example 'don't hunt bald eagles', 'don't hunt whales', 'don't pour raw sewage into rivers'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please understand that science is a process for learning - it does not offer instructions re for example hunting or disposal of sewage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems rather pedantic. I guess we can no longer say "what does science tell us about climate change?" After all, science doesn't "tell" us anything, it is just a process we use for learning.

Or, we can choose to interpret the statement in the way the speaker intended.
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To continue pedantry - all species are/were "invasive" - those present/the condition observed at the time of human/our observation are seen as resident.  As all is to human or any species or group's perspective (it's all about us) - we're "ok" killing  those (resident or invasive of whatever species or tribe) we don;t like esthetically or health wise, those we kill for food or sport, those eliminated indirectly in our economic efforts, etc..  in our societal organizations we do compel and kill others of our species but what would be benefit of killing those who drained the swamps - esp. as many of those activities were beneficial at the time.

btw - much  more than 98% of the world's species have disappeared.  Should we exterminate photosynthesis because of its toxic waste product?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, PhilGeis said:

To continue pedantry - all species are/were "invasive" - those present/the condition observed at the time of human/our observation are seen as resident.  As all is to human or any species or group's perspective (it's all about us) - we're "ok" killing  those (resident or invasive of whatever species or tribe) we don;t like esthetically or health wise, those we kill for food or sport, those eliminated indirectly in our economic efforts, etc..  in our societal organizations we do compel and kill others of our species but what would be benefit of killing those who drained the swamps - esp. as many of those activities were beneficial at the time.

2

This has been discussed in the thread, besides the op is no longer with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.