Man you're really on a tear with the restricted/banned fish threads today...bumped this one from almost two years ago lol.
Piranha caught in South FLA .. This wont help the cause...
- Thread starter Robbwilder
- Start date
As a professional fish and wildlife biologist I wish to respectfully request that you just stop making this argument. It really doesn't matter if you can point to an invasive species and say "not really causing a problem". That doesn't mean we should stop working to prevent future invasives from gaining footholds here. The next one COULD cause a problem. Several have and once they are established they really are impossible to eliminate. I'm sad that this is my first post on this forum, but having the media blow things out of proportion is not necessarily a bad thing if it scares someone enough that they actually think about it and don't let something go.Not all non-native species are problem in ecosystems. Snakeheads and pythons are supposed to be a huge problem and causes negative impacts on ecosystem but it has never happened.
Because you stated earlier that you wanted research or support for the stance that pythons are a problem for the ecosystem I did a quick journal search. This article is titled "Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park".
Another article I found discusses the problems of introduced species worldwide and the impacts of such. "Origin matters: alien consumers inflict greater damage on prey populations than do native consumers".
While the media might get things wrong, biologist of all stripes should be careful in how they describe things. "The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology." This article says something similar to what you are saying, from the abstract of the article: "I argue that militaristic and combative metaphors are problematic because (1) they lead to an inaccurate perception of invasive species; (2) they contribute to social misunderstanding, charges of xenophobia, and loss of scientific credibility; and (3) they reinforce militaristic patterns of thought that are counterproductive for conservation."
If you can't get to the articles let me know I will try to download them and make the PDF available to you.
Please understand that I am not saying that you can't have your opinion, or that you are wrong that some introduced species fit in without becoming an ecological disaster. I am saying that to argue so strongly for it does nothing to help prevent the possibility of a real problem occurring. I am honestly glad for once that the media is blowing something out of proportion, I usually rail against them for it. Wouldn't it be grand if everyone thought, "I must not let my pet ____ go." Is the idea that it may be more important to err towards protecting the environment wrong? We need to be right when we have to fight to keep the government from a careless wholesale restriction of the importation of harmless species that we keep as pets. That would be a great time to be right.
Back to the original post discussion, should have the Florida DNR rotenoned that pond? Hard to say, but it did prevent the possibility of the invasive animal from spreading, and honestly that kind of pond can easily be restocked. Introduced fish (or other animals) don't have to have a direct impact on the ecosystem to be a problem, they can carry diseases or parasites that can cause bigger problems than the fish species ever could. Would I have rotenoned that pond if I were the manager? I have been lucky in that I have never had to use rotenone as a management tool. I might have opted for a more intensive sampling of the pond for more specimens first, but, I do not know that the DNR did not try to find more specimens, or that more intensive sampling would have been effective, or even too costly. So I can't say whether they were wrong or right with the information I have in this case, but they did get the job done.
End of soapbox moment....
Hello; I like your post. It is well stated. Back in the late 60's as an undergraduate working on a Biology degree my thesis was about the invasive water hyacinth. My take has been that non-native species always have some sort of impact when they become established.As a professional fish and wildlife biologist I wish to respectfully request that you just stop making this argument. It really doesn't matter if you can point to an invasive species and say "not really causing a problem". That doesn't mean we should stop working to prevent future invasives from gaining footholds here. The next one COULD cause a problem. Several have and once they are established they really are impossible to eliminate. I'm sad that this is my first post on this forum, but having the media blow things out of proportion is not necessarily a bad thing if it scares someone enough that they actually think about it and don't let something go.
Because you stated earlier that you wanted research or support for the stance that pythons are a problem for the ecosystem I did a quick journal search. This article is titled "Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park".
Another article I found discusses the problems of introduced species worldwide and the impacts of such. "Origin matters: alien consumers inflict greater damage on prey populations than do native consumers".
While the media might get things wrong, biologist of all stripes should be careful in how they describe things. "The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology." This article says something similar to what you are saying, from the abstract of the article: "I argue that militaristic and combative metaphors are problematic because (1) they lead to an inaccurate perception of invasive species; (2) they contribute to social misunderstanding, charges of xenophobia, and loss of scientific credibility; and (3) they reinforce militaristic patterns of thought that are counterproductive for conservation."
If you can't get to the articles let me know I will try to download them and make the PDF available to you.
Please understand that I am not saying that you can't have your opinion, or that you are wrong that some introduced species fit in without becoming an ecological disaster. I am saying that to argue so strongly for it does nothing to help prevent the possibility of a real problem occurring. I am honestly glad for once that the media is blowing something out of proportion, I usually rail against them for it. Wouldn't it be grand if everyone thought, "I must not let my pet ____ go." Is the idea that it may be more important to err towards protecting the environment wrong? We need to be right when we have to fight to keep the government from a careless wholesale restriction of the importation of harmless species that we keep as pets. That would be a great time to be right.
Back to the original post discussion, should have the Florida DNR rotenoned that pond? Hard to say, but it did prevent the possibility of the invasive animal from spreading, and honestly that kind of pond can easily be restocked. Introduced fish (or other animals) don't have to have a direct impact on the ecosystem to be a problem, they can carry diseases or parasites that can cause bigger problems than the fish species ever could. Would I have rotenoned that pond if I were the manager? I have been lucky in that I have never had to use rotenone as a management tool. I might have opted for a more intensive sampling of the pond for more specimens first, but, I do not know that the DNR did not try to find more specimens, or that more intensive sampling would have been effective, or even too costly. So I can't say whether they were wrong or right with the information I have in this case, but they did get the job done.
End of soapbox moment....
So i am not trying to poke the bear or anything and correct me if i am wrong. Didn't the state of florida introduce P-bass to there waters for fishing purposes?? And if this is the case just wondering your thoughts on this.As a professional fish and wildlife biologist I wish to respectfully request that you just stop making this argument. It really doesn't matter if you can point to an invasive species and say "not really causing a problem". That doesn't mean we should stop working to prevent future invasives from gaining footholds here. The next one COULD cause a problem. Several have and once they are established they really are impossible to eliminate. I'm sad that this is my first post on this forum, but having the media blow things out of proportion is not necessarily a bad thing if it scares someone enough that they actually think about it and don't let something go.
Because you stated earlier that you wanted research or support for the stance that pythons are a problem for the ecosystem I did a quick journal search. This article is titled "Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park".
Another article I found discusses the problems of introduced species worldwide and the impacts of such. "Origin matters: alien consumers inflict greater damage on prey populations than do native consumers".
While the media might get things wrong, biologist of all stripes should be careful in how they describe things. "The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology." This article says something similar to what you are saying, from the abstract of the article: "I argue that militaristic and combative metaphors are problematic because (1) they lead to an inaccurate perception of invasive species; (2) they contribute to social misunderstanding, charges of xenophobia, and loss of scientific credibility; and (3) they reinforce militaristic patterns of thought that are counterproductive for conservation."
If you can't get to the articles let me know I will try to download them and make the PDF available to you.
Please understand that I am not saying that you can't have your opinion, or that you are wrong that some introduced species fit in without becoming an ecological disaster. I am saying that to argue so strongly for it does nothing to help prevent the possibility of a real problem occurring. I am honestly glad for once that the media is blowing something out of proportion, I usually rail against them for it. Wouldn't it be grand if everyone thought, "I must not let my pet ____ go." Is the idea that it may be more important to err towards protecting the environment wrong? We need to be right when we have to fight to keep the government from a careless wholesale restriction of the importation of harmless species that we keep as pets. That would be a great time to be right.
Back to the original post discussion, should have the Florida DNR rotenoned that pond? Hard to say, but it did prevent the possibility of the invasive animal from spreading, and honestly that kind of pond can easily be restocked. Introduced fish (or other animals) don't have to have a direct impact on the ecosystem to be a problem, they can carry diseases or parasites that can cause bigger problems than the fish species ever could. Would I have rotenoned that pond if I were the manager? I have been lucky in that I have never had to use rotenone as a management tool. I might have opted for a more intensive sampling of the pond for more specimens first, but, I do not know that the DNR did not try to find more specimens, or that more intensive sampling would have been effective, or even too costly. So I can't say whether they were wrong or right with the information I have in this case, but they did get the job done.
End of soapbox moment....
I don't feel poked, and I hope that MN_Rebel does not feel poked either. I am pretty much adverse to putting anything where it doesn't belong, ecologically speaking. Brook trout is introduced on the west coast is actually causing problems for the other native char (bull trout) out there. Brown trout are not native to North America and are causing problems for brook trout on the east coast and bull trout on the west coast. At least peacock bass are knocked back a bit by cold snaps. Largemouth and smallmouth bass are introduced through much of their current ranges, I will admit to enjoying fishing for them, makes me feel hypocritical but they are established. I sometimes wish i could use a time machine and stop a lot of the introductions that went bad.So i am not trying to poke the bear or anything and correct me if i am wrong. Didn't the state of florida introduce P-bass to there waters for fishing purposes?? And if this is the case just wondering your thoughts on this.
Hello; Do a bit of research on the introduction of rabbits for hunting into Australia.So i am not trying to poke the bear or anything and correct me if i am wrong. Didn't the state of florida introduce P-bass to there waters for fishing purposes?? And if this is the case just wondering your thoughts on this.
