Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Anyone else noticed the large amount of "wetlands" going up along the interstate highways?

This is a really sad point, but as I see it, if an investor/economist sees big $ opportunities from destroying a wet land that has existed for hundreds of years they can destroy it with the idea that creating a new "wet land" will compensate. Other than creating a new wet land, they pay large taxes and fees to the government, part of which is used to pay the salaries of the conservationists and buy their fancy vehicles. With this conception as to what qualifies as "natural habitat" we may need invasive species to fill the huge void produced in our ecosystems.

I actually had a mentor who is an ecologist. He was requested to do an environmental impact study for an area targeted for development. Helping with this study is what got me interested in college 12 yrs. ago. The twist; when his findings indicated great cause for not developing the area he began receiving threats to the lives of him and his family. The threats were serious enough that he moved his family across the country.

I understand that ecosystems are often delicate, and in fact dependent on many microenvironmental factors that are under our radar. Since we fail miserably to preserve them, everyone seems to think we can revert them back or create new ones. I trust in nature and wildlife to complete this task, after-all, why would I trust in the worst invasive species out there (Homo sapiens). I would go for the idea of limiting human intervention, after all we have a horrific track record. Let wildlife mold their own environments. Introduced species may be an essential component in the healing process.
-----
steve

How so? Explane how invasive species will help!

I have explained before that the land mass of earth was actually all connected at one time in one continent. So there was a time when there were no borders or insurmountable divisions of territories and habitats. The zones for each of earth’s creatures should be considered the circumference of earth at that latitude, or the temerate comfort zone for that life form. In Florida, there used to be tapirs, camels, jaguars and giant sloths. It is quite idiotic to say the way it is today is the way it should be preserved for evermore. The earth doesn’t work that way, thank God or everything would be extinct. There is a constant ever evolving and changing dynamic. Like comparing a single frame of a movie to a whole movie. If you want to see a specific slice of time, you go to a museum and look at the stuffed taxadermy animals on display in a dioramah.

You have to consider that the pythons are finding enough vermin animals to survive quite comfortably on. The fringe areas past the housing developments produce an abnormal abundance of rats, raccoons, opposums and feral cats. We have already killed off as many of the native natural predators from these same areas. The pythons are filling a niche in the local environment because it is an unbalanced condition that favors them. It is idiotic (can’t help but use that word again) to remove a natural component of the local order that is providing a much needed service to mankind. What will our predator of choise be when the pythons are all removed (if that were possible)? We are not going to accept alligators, rattlesnakes and cottonmouths are we? So what we will have is nothing. A runaway condition of opportunistic foragers that creates far more imbalance and unnatural conditions. You will see a rise in rabies and other diseases because there is a lack of balance. The mindset will eventually have to come to accept that pythons are a welcome addition to our ecosystem, and that they, in fact, belong there.

>>How so? Explane how invasive species will help!

The issue, imo, is what is the definition of "invasive?" Before any argument/discussion can ensue, the definition of "invasive" has to be established. It seems like "invasive" has become equivalent to "introduced", which, imo, is nonsense.

Look at it this way. Scientists (correctly) tell us that *diversity* is critical for a healthy ecosystem. Yet at the same time, scientists now seem to be telling us that any/every introduced species is "invasive" and bad for the ecosystem. Can't have it both ways.

Introduction to invasion would be based on the ability of the animal to reach high reproductive biological potential. In order to accomplish that it would need an ecological niche. That can be accomplished if a niche is open, either historically or by changes induced such as human alteration, or they may displace another species from that niche. Based on the rapid rate of human induced habitat alteration and the fact that WE ARE IN THE 6th GREAT EXTINCTION, it is inevitable that ecosystem dynamics are rapidly changing. Our fellow was insightful enough to point out that our environment as a movie vs. a still frame. With the changing ecosystem dynamics more introduced species will be able to become invasive; not necessarily a derogatory term. In order to succeed they must be reach an equilibrium with the environment, and accomplishing this for millions of years is what has allowed for us to have a biologically reach and dynamic environment in the 1st place. Our environment is not a terrarium, and trying to make it one will only benefit humans temporarily. So that is the explanation for our helpful new friends such as the burmese.
-----
steve

Thanks all,I was hoping for some clear and understandable responces.I have given this same example in talks I have given over the years. Even in modern times organism are carried across ocheans in storms. Birds with tics ect. Thanks again I think a lot of folks learned something from this. Vic

It's been a pleasure. I have enjoyed the responses as well. Unfortunately, many find it useful in terms of funding to go with the common flow that all introduced species are harmful. In fact it usually takes an altered ecosystem at least 100 yrs. to regain or reach a new mature (tertiary) state, at which time they become more stable. This makes it superbly difficult to conduct field trials on such matters. I am going on the basis of a poor track record of human action, and deciding to trust wildlife to accomplish the task.
-----
steve

Burms eat feral cats. Enough said...

They should get an award for that.

Cats decimate more wildlife than Burms ever will.

I'm relatively new to the hobby at having only two years experience. I found the post and responses to be informative and it all makes sense. It reminded me of Jarasic Park when Dr. Malcolm stated that "Nature will find a way." If you have no natural predators of vermin left in an area such as southern Florida, then why not just leave the burmese alone and see what happens? Fear panic and loathing of an animal that should not be loathed and feared. People in numbers are panicky and unreasonable. A person is relatively smart...Well most of the time anyway. People in mass will always fear reptile life. It's sad to see that there are more hysterical people than rational people left in the world these days. I would like to congratulate every in this thread that made me smile.
-----
1.0 100% het albino columbian
1.0 pastel columbian
0.1 hypo columbian
0.1 guyana
0.2 jcp
1.0 irian jaya
1.1.1 normal balls
1.0 granite al burm
0.1 granite het al burm
0.1 albino burm
1.0 sunfire retic
0.2 tiger retics