You do have to understand the point of all those words to see any sense in them. Of course words don’t have meaning to animals or to their environments. Words weren’t invented for animals or for environments to understand. They are meant to convey thought, from one person to another. Big words serve the purpose of summarizing concepts that would otherwise take an overly-descriptive sentence. As in, I could replace the last sentence with “Me wordy, you frank.”

The issue of invasives/ferals/aliens/whatever your favorite word for that genre of creatures, is not a black and white one. We should not rest content knowing that we are negatively impacting overall diversity just because we see that species replacement can occur. Sure, we damage “X” number of native species by modifying the environment, but does that mean that we should bring in a couple of new species that further damage an additional “Y” native species? In other words, why should indirect damage (by invasives) be dismissed simply because it follows direct damage (by us)? Do you really think such secondary infection should be acceptable? Do you think it HAS to occur?

Yes, changing environments result in changing biomass. Changing environments result in changing species assemblages. Over long enough periods (or sometimes very short ones), changing environments result in extinctions and the rise of “new” (different) species.

What we can impact via our introductions is WHICH species will change with the times, as with the green anole/brown anole example. Brown anoles in Florida have been evaluated as distinct (yes, whatever that means) from the source subspecies that came to Florida. Meaning, Florida browns are already morphing into a geographically distinct metapopulation (all the populations in Florida, again, “wordy). Had we not brought brown anoles to Florida, it would be the green anoles changing with the times. Where climate doesn’t suit the brown anole, it IS the green anole changing with the times.

You can’t preserve anything, native or non. But, we can control which species will be able to conserve themselves (i.e., persist by adapting to current environmental trends). The overall scenario is a combination of people yearning for a natural world and simultaneously wanting to play the master of it.

Fire ants are here to stay. “Overpopulated” (i.e., a population size that is matched with current, human-influenced habitat provisions) raccoons are here to stay. Chances are good that Nile monitors are here to stay. I do think it is silly to brainstorm about undoing all of that. As a nation we funnel more conservation funds to Hawaii than most (all?) other states. We do this hoping to re-establish a “natural” Hawaii, even though mass extinction actually began when the Polynesians hit. All this preservation finance and work for some rocks that will be at the bottom of the ocean in time, hey? Rather than continuing war on an enemy we cannot match because of the nature of the battles, we should invest our full capacity in figuring out how to prevent future competition from not-yet present invasive species (i.e., in HI continue targeting the brown tree snake; forget about Jackson’s chameleon). I was not implying we need to redefine our words to clarify our perception of environmental history. I am saying that we can learn from it and move forward in a more conservative fashion.

That’s where people in the herp hobby/business come in. Especially business. How many monitors have you sold to Florida? How many cities/states that you sold monitors to in the past now have restrictions or prohibitions? Restriction will be an increasing trend as more and more people of low responsibility obtain these animals. Figuring out how to prevent THAT invasive plague (further legal tangle) is the responsibility of everyone involved in the sale and/or purchase of monitors or any herp species likely to be targeted for control. Often when you write a post likely to be perceived as “inflammatory”, you pretext it with the US being a free country. Yes, it is, but with each bit of legislation (you want to talk about truly pitiable words) cast to protect “the public” from irresponsible herp keepers, some of your (business) freedom evaporates. Only once herp keepers/sellers are the ones influencing the words of pertinent laws will the laws favor herp keepers/sellers. Darn, I made another one with simple implications long and wordy. I’ll leave it there for now. Thanks. Ben

[ Show Entire Thread ]