>What I'm attempting to raise is whether individuals think it is
>more important to preserve greatest biodiversity (maximum number
>of species) or greatest number of native species (possibly
>assisted by avoiding future introduction of foreign species). I
>don't think you can have a valid answer for such a question, since
>there will be no way to prove your answer. You can have an
>opinion, as can everyone. That's what I'm interested in.

I think it is best to avoid introduction of foreign species, but once the cat is out of the bag it becomes more complicated. IF (and its a huge if) niles are established, they are already part of the ecosystem, we don't and can't know the implications of wiping them out, even if it was possible. What about the animals that consume the monitor eggs, the monitor babies, the monitor adults? If there is a large enough population of monitors to cause problems, doesn't that imply they are also contributing to the chain. Removing them will also throw things off balance. I'm not so much saying they should stay, just that it is not straight forward. And there are wrongs we do, that may be correctible, with limited resources we should concentrate on those first.

But, in this case, it is purely a witchhunt to generate money that is largely supported by people's fear of large reptiles. If this was about ferile cats and dogs, it would not have near the media exposure or support. I haven't seen anyone calling out a ban of cats and dogs because they are cheap, mistreated (the numbers make monitor imports look piddly) and set loose by irresponsible owners. While I have no evidence to support it, I'd bet dogs and cats are far more destructive to native populations, and pose a much larger risk to humans (at least dogs).

--Robert

[ Show Entire Thread ]