When you talk about creating a better chance for native species to adapt to the greatest number of human environments .You must consider that unless the animals are evolving in an eco system that is fully complete as nature intended the native animal or plant is no longer in it`s natural role. And that changes many things.

A native animal that is forced into an artificially created environment that is missing many or most of the pieces of what it was originally evolving in conjunction with from predator to prey plants , animals and everything in between. Really the only major component left is the weather.This puts them in very similar to the circumstances that many introduced species are placed in.

The native animal must now have to figure out how to make do with what it has to work with. Under these conditions the native creatures will not evolve to fill their true evolutionarily roles. Taxonomist ,biologist and any gist you can think of will still refer to these animals as natives but if they survive they will really be only mutated versions of what they should have been.You can`t remove any parts of the equation and expect to get the same result.

The real question is what is better the killing off all the Introduced species to aid the natives so that we can pats ourselves on the back for saving them and call what ever parts are left natural or is it better or is it better to leave them compete along side the natives in the newly created environments applying one of natures favorite principles Survival of the fittest to determine what is natural for this New environment. Ernie Eison

[ Hide Replies ]

• What I should have originally posted - casichelydia, Tue Mar 14 22:24:07 2006
• RE: What I should have originally posted - FR, Tue Mar 14 23:16:07 2006
• RE: What I should have originally posted - phantasticus, Wed Mar 15 21:54:08 2006
• RE: How naive the young are - FR, Wed Mar 15 22:22:25 2006
• RE: How naive the old are - phantasticus, Thu Mar 16 19:42:01 2006
• RE: sir, your missing the point - FR, Thu Mar 16 21:57:23 2006
• actually you are changing the point - phantasticus, Fri Mar 17 01:31:20 2006
• RE: Whooooooo hahahahahaha - FR, Fri Mar 17 13:07:15 2006
• RE: Whooooooo hahahahahaha - phantasticus, Fri Mar 17 14:51:10 2006
• Wow - RobertBushner, Thu Mar 16 12:06:33 2006
• RE: Wow / there is growth no doubt - phantasticus, Thu Mar 16 19:23:57 2006
• Good point - RobertBushner, Thu Mar 16 20:24:24 2006
• ONE? - phantasticus, Sat Mar 18 15:02:19 2006
• RE: What I should have originally posted - groundskeeper24, Thu Mar 16 03:28:32 2006
• Exactly - RobertBushner, Thu Mar 16 12:13:44 2006
• RE: What I should have originally posted - wstreps, Tue Mar 14 23:51:37 2006
• RE: What I should have originally posted - casichelydia, Wed Mar 15 21:03:59 2006
• RE: What I should have originally posted - wstreps, Thu Mar 16 11:21:57 2006
• RE: What I should have originally posted - RobertBushner, Thu Mar 16 13:12:19 2006
• RE: What I should have originally posted - casichelydia, Thu Mar 16 15:00:43 2006
• Man eating??? - RobertBushner, Thu Mar 16 15:38:34 2006
• Knew a guy who knew a guy who got ate up - casichelydia, Thu Mar 16 16:15:02 2006
• RE: Knew a guy who knew a guy who got ate up - wstreps, Thu Mar 16 18:22:55 2006
• RE: Knew a guy who knew a guy who got at - RobertBushner, Thu Mar 16 18:50:50 2006
• RE: we already have permits in place - JPsShadow, Thu Mar 16 19:12:26 2006
• RE: we already have permits in place - RobertBushner, Thu Mar 16 22:36:12 2006
• RE: nope - JPsShadow, Thu Mar 16 23:33:23 2006
• About monitors and appetites.. - SHvar, Fri Mar 17 01:44:57 2006
• RE: About monitors and appetites.. - casichelydia, Fri Mar 17 12:47:27 2006
• The basic idea is that even under.. - SHvar, Sun Mar 19 12:24:25 2006