Burm hunt video

http://www.weather.com/multimedia/vi...rom=hp_video_2

Greg Graziani is in this vid ;)

cool! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icygirl

http://www.weather.com/multimedia/vi...rom=hp_video_2

Greg Graziani is in this vid ;)

---

Thanks so much for posting

yeah thanks :)

Greg Graziani has a sweet 'stache!

That was a fantastic video. I love how they mentioned 'even though the animals are not a threat to the public but they are to indigenous wildlife'. They were definitely not putting the animals up as evil or the ones responsible for the mess.

They also didn't show them kill it. I'm not sure if they did though I dislike it, I understand the necessity of killing these animals because there are so many.

I'm also glad no firearms or traps are allowed. :gj:

So what is graziani doing with the snakes he keeps I wonder? taking them home or putting them down???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcrystal22

They also didn't show them kill it. I'm not sure if they did though I dislike it, I understand the necessity of killing these animals because there are so many.

:gj:

---

I've got a pair of burmese pants on the way this week.:gj: They are kinda like leather except they shed a few times a year. I'm so excited I might just hiss my pants:rolleye2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

So what is graziani doing with the snakes he keeps I wonder? taking them home or putting them down???

---

I'm sure they are putting them all down. The burm in the video was later showed dead on the grass.

Well, that was a light account on the situation. it's nice to hear about this without all the hype and exaggerations on how these deadly pythons have amassed in huge numbers in the Everglades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twistedtails

I've got a pair of burmese pants on the way this week.:gj: They are kinda like leather except they shed a few times a year. I'm so excited I might just hiss my pants:rolleye2:

---

I may not understand correctly, but are you going to have an animal killed just so you can have pants? :colbert: the pants will look retarded and you could get normal pants (like jeans) without killing an animal...

im glad they added the bit about the pet shops.... im glad this is finaly getting taken care of.... i hope they lay off....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hock3ymonk3y

I may not understand correctly, but are you going to have an animal killed just so you can have pants? :colbert: the pants will look retarded and you could get normal pants (like jeans) without killing an animal...

---

lol i agree :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lillyorchid

I'm sure they are putting them all down. The burm in the video was later showed dead on the grass.

---

are you sure it was dead? its possible they sedated it, they may have plans to release them in thier natural habitat.

they MUST be killed,logged,gps coordinates,and stomache examination

so,why not use the hide's as pants or anything you want,let less of it go to waste

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hock3ymonk3y

I may not understand correctly, but are you going to have an animal killed just so you can have pants? :colbert: the pants will look retarded and you could get normal pants (like jeans) without killing an animal...

---

The animals are going to be killed regardless. It's better to use some part of them instead of it entirely going to waste. I quite honestly would love to get my hands on a hide and try my hand at tanning it; perhaps mounting a smaller one, since the only snake mount forms I've seen are for rattlesnakes and such.

i was under the impression the herpetologist was going to be deciding what to do with captured specimens. killing or keeping, it's up to them.

Thanks for posting this vid. Did you guys notice that the tag under Greg's name in this vid was "scientist"? :rofl: I'm going to have to call Jacki and see if his head still fits in the front door!

What's happening right now is so good for our industry. Special thanks to Greg, Shawn and Michael for convincing the powers that be on the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to allow this pilot project and then putting their time into making this happen. I feel so fortunate to have these three representing us in this effort . . . they are professional, calm, and well-spoken.

First of all the burmese pants was a joke. Get it? Hiss my pants?:rofl: You were supposed to laugh darnit! On the other hand just like others have posted....If the snake are going to be killed, then by all means let somebody wear them. Yeah it is a sad thing that these snakes have to be killed. At least we are not adventuring out in THIER habitat and killing them. Florida belongs to the aligators not burmese pythons. I totally agree with this hunt and support the scientist with thier decisions. It sure beats the ban!! It would cost our over extended government to much to send these animals home alive. I also really like the fact that there is professionals involved in this. Greg will set the number straight that these snakes causing the harm are not ball pythons.:gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Biscy

i was under the impression the herpetologist was going to be deciding what to do with captured specimens. killing or keeping, it's up to them.

---

I'd imagen a few "special" burms will be kept. Who knows, Florida line burms may be the next big thing and I bet a couple there could be a few new mutations that could come out of those lines.;)

From the other thread but it fits here as well.

"Permitted individuals are free to take the specimens or euthanize them on site at their discretion."

Honestly I think that killing of a species we deem as invasive is ignorant always have and this is not just the case of snakes. I believe that an animal that can survive in an environment should be allowed to they further develop North America's weak ecosystem and help natural selection in the areas they establish themselves in. I know they were introduced improperly however this is the case with many non native plants and animals that end up becoming a positive change in the ecosystem. Humans have always wanted to control the earth and the ecosystem and we will eventually be the most negative impact on it ironically.

/end rant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by envy_ld50

From the other thread but it fits here as well.

"Permitted individuals are free to take the specimens or euthanize them on site at their discretion."

Honestly I think that killing of a species we deem as invasive is ignorant always have and this is not just the case of snakes. I believe that an animal that can survive in an environment should be allowed to they further develop North America's weak ecosystem and help natural selection in the areas they establish themselves in. I know they were introduced improperly however this is the case with many non native plants and animals that end up becoming a positive change in the ecosystem. Humans have always wanted to control the earth and the ecosystem and we will eventually be the most negative impact on it ironically.

/end rant.

---

thats the most ignorant thing i have herd about invasives!!

nearly all invasives have been human introduced and many are causing shifts in the ecosystems that will cause native animal populations to crash meaning no more native animals. with a large preadator like burms, who knows what the extent of the damage will be. weither killed or kept it is a postive step and i wish there would be more programs like this for other invasives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucas339

thats the most ignorant thing i have herd about invasives!!

nearly all invasives have been human introduced and many are causing shifts in the ecosystems that will cause native animal populations to crash meaning no more native animals. with a large preadator like burms, who knows what the extent of the damage will be. weither killed or kept it is a postive step and i wish there would be more programs like this for other invasives.

---

You need to do more research on this. There are many invasive species that have been introduced into our country that have not had a horrible impact as predicted. Here's a kicker for you without one invasive species you wouldn't be able to keep your snakes! That of course is the rat I am referring to. The truth is the Burmese fits in the everglades perfectly. They will be a food source just as much as they prey on native vermin. The Burmese is not going to kill ever animal in the ecosystem, the everglades are pretty mush stuck with the Burmese at this point regardless I do not see a possible way for us to remove them at this point in time without harming the ecosystem ourselves. Also Lucas339 what is your view for calling my post ignorant? The only negatives to come from this situation are the bad press us snake owners recieve from those who do not like snakes PERIOD.

trust me. i am well versed on the impacts of invasives in florida...i suggest searching out some scientific papers on them and not just listening to the media and forming your own non-fact driven opinion.

BTW, i could still have my snakes....i don't feed any of my animals wild caught prey so i have no idea were you came up with that.

In response to envy_ld50: Guam has no birds, and the forests are silent!!! See link:

http://www.13point7billion.org/2009/...s-on-boat.html

Who the heck is feeding their snakes wild caught rats?

Do you have any examples of invasive species that did something good for the ecology? Sure, some were introduced deliberately by a moronic government.. look at kudzu.

The best I can think of wouldbe pheasant which I can't think do much to HURT the environment, although they may displace native grouse, which is bad, not good. Hmm.. sorry, can't come up with any.

I know there are some non native species that find a niche that isn't already taken and because of that don't hurt the enviroment but I can't think of any that actually help the enviroment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewster320

I'd imagen a few "special" burms will be kept. Who knows, Florida line burms may be the next big thing and I bet a couple there could be a few new mutations that could come out of those lines.;)

---

How cool would it be if something positive came of this, well positive to herpers ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by envy_ld50

From the other thread but it fits here as well.

"Permitted individuals are free to take the specimens or euthanize them on site at their discretion."

Honestly I think that killing of a species we deem as invasive is ignorant always have and this is not just the case of snakes. I believe that an animal that can survive in an environment should be allowed to they further develop North America's weak ecosystem and help natural selection in the areas they establish themselves in. I know they were introduced improperly however this is the case with many non native plants and animals that end up becoming a positive change in the ecosystem. Humans have always wanted to control the earth and the ecosystem and we will eventually be the most negative impact on it ironically.

/end rant.

---

I would disagree with your statement, I do not know of any species that were ever beneficial to the ecosystem.

Those rats you say aren't an issue, ask any one who has them in their area. They destroy grain supplies, they spread disease, they do feed some snakes but they are aggressive little boogers.

If you have facts to support what you have stated here please share them with us.

Mike

If you truly believe what you preach, then you'll never reproduce and go jump off a cliff right now
these habitats are controlled by fish and wildlife game as they see fit, introducing and reintroducing species of animals and plants as they see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucas339

thats the most ignorant thing i have herd about invasives!!

nearly all invasives have been human introduced and many are causing shifts in the ecosystems that will cause native animal populations to crash meaning no more native animals. with a large preadator like burms, who knows what the extent of the damage will be. weither killed or kept it is a postive step and i wish there would be more programs like this for other invasives.

---

I apologize if my comments are not understood but it doesn't not warrant anyone to tell me that I should not reproduce or jump off a cliff. Non native species can do harm however the Burmese in the everglades is not as bad as it is being made out to be. I am all for removing them if it is possible I wish we could do it easily without harming the ecosystem.

well i got an infraction, does this mean i am going to be banned? gee i hope not.

but let me clarify: i didn't reply to envy_ld50, i was replying to lucas and what was so rude or hostile about it?

i was making a point. people saying get rid of invasive species, well humans are the most invasive...so if a person truly believes this philosophy of eliminating invasive species, then they will not reproduce and/or they may terminate their life.

it's not what i preach or believe, but some do.

the supposed snake people have a hug war ahead of them, and yet you are wanting to see snakes terminated. you are doing all of the work for the people that do not want to see snakes in captivity!

they also better get some thicker skin as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redpython

If you truly believe what you preach, then you'll never reproduce and go jump off a cliff right now
these habitats are controlled by fish and wildlife game as they see fit, introducing and reintroducing species of animals and plants as they see fit.

---

lol

So let's see... if you break your arm, you won't treat the infected cut on your leg.. even if it's getting worse without treatment.. because your arm is broke? Do I have your logic down pat? Just because humans cause a lot of issues, and disturb the environment doesn't mean you shouldn't fix other issues like introduced species.

When you figure out how to stop humans from having any affect on any environment, while feeding and housing all of US, you let me know.

Get off your duff and try to fix the issues. Whining that people made it happen doesn't fix a darned thing. Humans aren't invasive, we're pervasive. We're everywhere, and there's no way to eliminate all humans.

Burms don't belong in the everglades. Removing them is the right thing to do for the ecology of the swamp. Removing them is also the right thing to do for the PR of herp hobbiests. Just because I love dogs doesn't mean I won't tell someone to put down a vicious one. Just because I love snakes doesn't mean I'll sacrifice the entire everglades and any native species to prevent feral burmese from being euthanized.

If burmese reach the keys, we could lose the Key deer population. I'd like to keep the Key deer. I like the useless little buggers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucas339

thats the most ignorant thing i have herd about invasives!!

nearly all invasives have been human introduced and many are causing shifts in the ecosystems that will cause native animal populations to crash meaning no more native animals. with a large preadator like burms, who knows what the extent of the damage will be. weither killed or kept it is a postive step and i wish there would be more programs like this for other invasives.

---

Most exotic or non-indigenous species (NIS) pose no threat at all (see http://www.invasive.org/101/moreinfo.cfm) and some species typically labeled " invasive" actually do provide benefits. An example of a ecological benefit would be a non-native plant attracting more pollinators for the overall plant community (see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0516125934.htm). Most of our food chain is dependent on crops that were not native at some point. And many invasive plants are being considered as biofuel sources. So there are often overlooked economic benefits to NIS as well.

See the link below for more info on some of the economic benefits

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA544...veSpecies.html

I'm also seeing a lot of confusion in this thread and the other thread about invasives. The problem is with the term "invasive" The term "Invasive species", historically, was a value-ridden scientific term/category. Scientific terms in which values are connected are not operationally very good scientific terms! Scientific terms should be neutral; they should be objective and judgment-free. Traditionally, invasive meant a species non-native species "bad for the environment" that had the capability to propagating tremendously in its new surroundings, often rapidly, and displacing native species by predation, competition, or some other means.

The problem is that "bad for the environment"- This cannot be measured objectively without the injection of some values. After all, nature has winners and loser in it.......see this paper for more information.

http://planet.botany.uwc.ac.za/nisl/...ndMacIsaac.pdf

The above paper gives the example of the mosquito fish which was introduced to decrease larval mosquitoes, but also harmed native species of fish and amphibians as well as some non-target insect species. Mosquitoes went down that's good for the human environment, but is it good ecologically? There are often positive and negative effects of introduced species.

1. Good job I think? Not sure how I feel about all this yet.
2. When did Greg Graziani become a scientist? If he can be a scientist, then I am knighting myself and putting sir before my name. You will all address me as such! :)
3. That is the best mustache I have seen since:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21...johnHolmes.jpg

Not to mention that exotic species are an important part of the pet industry. This site does a good job in pointing this out often and members of the herpetological hobby seem to organize to prevent the hysteria often associated with the invasive classification. This proactive approach to Burmese problem by big names in the herp industry will help quell fears of a massive Python invasion out of the Everglades and into more Northern states, even if those fears rest on some very shaky science (the orginal USGS report)

Many in the political environmental movement want laws to ban all exotic species or apply what is called the "precautionary principle" to exotic species. The precautionary principle sounds good at first glance. It sounds like look before you leap. However, in many of these proposed invasive species laws, the US Fish and Wildlife Service would have to "prove" that the exotic species to be imported is not harmful if it determines to take no action. "Proving a negative" in science is impossible. It's like assuming guilt before innocence and it would hamper the economic incentives to do business and innovate in many fields-for example, the chemical industry, electronics industry, agriculture, aquaculture, as well as the pet industry. I'm not for no risk assessment but the precautionary principle puts all the burden of proof on people who want to try new things. The first people to import and sell Ball pythons may have never got the chance if a strong environmental precautionary principle based law was around at the time they were first imported.
You can read more about precautionary principle here...... http://www.reason.com/news/show/30977.html

sure some non-native species pose no real threat....elsewhere! here in florida we are plagued with some of the worst species around...both plant and animal. plants that cause harm to water ways and choke out native speices: Brazilian Pepper, Austrialian Pine, Water Hydrilla, water hyacinth, animals causing declines in local animal populations Cuban tree frog, Cane toad, green mussel, Titan acorn barnacle, lion fish (not yet shown to be negative but just wait). here is a list from USDA of all of the florida non-native speices minus the insects two of which are causing harm are the african honey bee and the fire ant (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/Speci...thway=&Sortby=[Group],Genus,Species,SubSpecies&Size=50&nativeexotic=&HUCNumber=&Page=1)

some introduced species can be benifical, however, in FL these animals get out of control and begin taking over are replacing native animals. this is never good...no way, no how. it is not beneficial...ever. florida's unique ecosystem offers a good enviorment for exotics to gain a foot hold. you cannot compare this state to anyother. we do not need any more insvasive and those that are here need to be irracated.

my comments were directed at the person who suggested that true invasive species should not be killed, even when negative impacts are determined and they should be allowed to creat a niche for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucas339

s

some introduced species can be benifical, however, in FL these animals get out of control and begin taking over are replacing native animals. this is never good...no way, no how. it is not beneficial...ever. florida's unique ecosystem offers a good enviorment for exotics to gain a foot hold. you cannot compare this state to anyother. we do not need any more insvasive and those that are here need to be irracated.

---

Just as you can't compare the biogeography of Florida to other states, you can't make lofty generalizations about all non-ingenious species and/or invasives. Each species and population is unique in terms of it establishment and dispersal, physio-chemical tolerances, and community interactions. Each population has its own overall cost-benefit ratio associated with it as well as individual cost-benefit ratios for industries such as tourism, timber, agriculture, etc. So I don't see how you can see they are never beneficial ever.

The size of the "invasive" population helps determine the cost-benefit ratio. This is true about natives species as well. Here in PA and many other northeastern states we have an overabundance of the native white-tailed deer. The overpopulation increases the frequency of deer-vehicle collisions and impacts forest ecology heavily. Certain types of trees (oaks and sugar maples) in eastern deciduous forests fail to regenerate with heavy foraging on the saplings by large populations of the white-tailed deer. Wild-flowers disappear from the forest understory.

Here's an interesting part to the story ...then often the garlic mustard (an invasive) that deer do not eat takes hold. So is it all the "invasives" doing (garlic mustard does produce poisons that hurt native's plant roots) or are large scale patterns of ecological disturbance at work here as well? My point is forestry and wildlife management is not as simple as let's get rid of those evil invasives. Vilifying invasive and/or exotic species is emotionally based approach that will lead to nowhere in my opinion.

More on the White Tail Deer Story can be found in this link..... http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/special_...ailed_deer.pdf ( a pretty short paper that provides a good overview of the scope of the issue)

Nor are invasive plants and their spread a modern industrial problem. The American Lotus was spread northward by Native Americans. We have and will always be a vector for the spread of other living things. However, I think we can take steps to manage this intelligently and economically.

Next time people vilifying invasive or exotic snakes and attempt to justify an outright ban on them because of the Burmese-Florida problem point them to this link which lists North American mammal species...http://www.invasive.org/species/mammals.cfm

Notice the domestic dog is the first one on the list.

Why would they list native species on there as exotic, invasive? Coyotes and prairie dogs are both native.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

Why would they list native species on there as exotic, invasive? Coyotes and prairie dogs are both native.

---

It might have something to do with the problem of determining at what point is something "native."

This essay titled "Re-thinking Invasive Plants" (http://www.prodigalgardens.info/reth...e%20plants.htm) discusses this point in more detail. While the essay focuses on plants, I'm bet some of it could apply to animal and fungal species as well.

The essay relies a bit too heavily on the (unsupported) Gia hypothesis to build its argument for my taste and takes a somewhat laissez-faire approach to land management. But at times, knowing when to be hands off could be important. Maybe we can use what is being dealt out of the biodiversity deck of cards for society's benefit as well.

It brings up a number of interesting questions, so its well worth a read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

Why would they list native species on there as exotic, invasive? Coyotes and prairie dogs are both native.

---

I think the site I listed above lists them as such because they are not native to some states like Florida.

See

http://myfwc.com/WILDLIFEHABITATS/No...PrairieDog.htm

http://myfwc.com/WILDLIFEHABITATS/Nonnative_Coyote.htm

Interestingly, under the species account for the coyote:

"Native of the western United States and likely entered Florida both from natural range expansion (my emphasis) and human introductions"

Ecological communities do change over time even without human input.

Mendel I think you have done a great job trying to convey my thoughts on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by envy_ld50

Honestly I think that killing of a species we deem as invasive is ignorant always have and this is not just the case of snakes. I believe that an animal that can survive in an environment should be allowed to they further develop North America's weak ecosystem and help natural selection in the areas they establish themselves in. I know they were introduced improperly however this is the case with many non native plants and animals that end up becoming a positive change in the ecosystem. Humans have always wanted to control the earth and the ecosystem and we will eventually be the most negative impact on it ironically.

/end rant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by envy_ld50

Mendel I think you have done a great job trying to convey my thoughts on this issue.

---

I do want to clarify that in this case I do favor the current attempts of humans to eradicate Burmese pythons in the Everglades. The Burmese would never have established itself in the Everglades if it weren't for zoos and hobbyists keeping them. They would never have naturally expanded to Florida from India in such a short time frame without human intervention. I think the fact that herpers are trying to solve the problem (even if it was mostly due to Andrew's dissemination of zoos and pet shops) can only be seen as positive PR. Rapid change is never a good thing for ecosystems. And eco-tourism is important to the economy of Florida.

However, while I don't agree with everything he said, I do think envy_ld50 is correct in saying that some invasives can get overly bad rap.

Furthermore, some invasion and ecological change is expected. Humans are an agent of change and this isn't necessarily always such a bad thing. Furthermore, some species will need to scarified to maintain the agricultural productivity necessary to feed human populations and drive economic development.

Some of envy's words in this thread as well as some the articles I referred to above also made me thinking of the following scenario.

What if the current eradication efforts fail? Maybe Burmese are really entrenched in the ecosystem? Should we try another eradication approach? How far should we go?

What limits a Burmese population in their native range? (I dont think this known!) What if its some sort of herpetological virus? Should we release it? What about some sort of pesticide spraying? Would that risk damaging non-target native herps? At what point, does the solution becoming worse than just accepting the fact they are there to stay now?

I don't believe we are anywhere near that level yet.....but its worth considering. Eradication efforts can be very costly and environmentally hurtful without much benefit if taken to extremes.

In a recent article that has been disseminated in various threads on this forum, Dave and Tracy Barker suggest possible positive effects to the ecology of the Everglades from the unintended introduction of Burmese Pythons:

"Is it a fact that pythons in the Everglades are a terrible ecological problem?

No, it truly is not yet known what changes or problems the pythons in South Florida will cause. At this point in time, Burmese pythons are just one of the thousands of established exotic species in South Florida. They are predators, and we know that they, in turn, also have predators at all age and size classes.

The ecology of the Everglades is in constant flux and has been for at least the past century. It remains to be seen if the presence of Burmese pythons will have any significant effect on the Everglades beyond what already
is at play there. Remember, this already is the area of the world with the most introduced non-native species.

Could they prey on endangered or threatened species?
Yes, certainly that is possible. But, in turn, pythons will likely be identified as significant predators of feral cats and young feral hogs, both identified as detrimental invasive species in the Everglades. (my emphasis)

It may be that Burmese pythons become a valuable resource. As is true for alligators, the hide of pythons has value; python skins are commercially harvested throughout their native ranges. Just as iguanas in Miami are
harvested for meat, many cultures consider python to be a delicacy.

What Burmese pythons are is an unexpected change, a new factor in the ecology of an already highly modified ecosystem. It is a fact that they are in the Everglades to stay, a permanent addition to the herpetofauna of Florida."

i suggest those of you who continue to comment against the elimination of non-native read this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...52a9310bce8a17) and this (http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.16...N%5D2.3.CO%3B2).

many of you just don't get how much trouble florida is in with its invasives. i strongly feel that ALL must be erridacted. there are just too many and we are begining to lose natrual ecosystmes. we finally have a group working on restoring the everglades and they are finally working in the right direction. there will be changes to water flow and, hopefully changes in species management.

i strongly suggest that those you that wish to comment on such subjects actually educate yourselves on FLORIDA invsavies and not invasives elsewhere. there is a difference and they cannot be compared. PERIOD END!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucas339

i suggest those of you who continue to comment against the elimination of non-native read this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...52a9310bce8a17) and this (http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.16...N%5D2.3.CO%3B2).

many of you just don't get how much trouble florida is in with its invasives. i strongly feel that ALL must be erridacted. there are just too many and we are begining to lose natrual ecosystmes. we finally have a group working on restoring the everglades and they are finally working in the right direction. there will be changes to water flow and, hopefully changes in species management.

i strongly suggest that those you that wish to comment on such subjects actually educate yourselves on FLORIDA invsavies and not invasives elsewhere. there is a difference and they cannot be compared. PERIOD END!!!!!!!!

---

Why do you assume a "natural" ecosystem is better?

And what if they the non-native Burmese can not be eliminated? Then what....

"What I find particularly depressing about the “native species only” argument is that it ends up denying the inevitability of ecological change. Its underlying assumption is that the plant and animal communities that existed in North America before the Europeans arrived can and should be preserved. The fact that this pre-Columbian environment no longer exists—and cannot be recreated—does not seem to matter. Many landscape professionals have a strong desire to restore habitats to the way they used to be, even after the original conditions that produced these assemblages of plants and animals have long since disappeared. To deny the inevitability of ecological change or to pass moral judgment on it is to deny the reality of organic evolution."

From this issue of the Harvard Design Magazine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucas339

i suggest those of you who continue to comment against the elimination of non-native read this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...52a9310bce8a17) and this (http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.16...N%5D2.3.CO%3B2).

many of you just don't get how much trouble florida is in with its invasives. i strongly feel that ALL must be erridacted. there are just too many and we are begining to lose natrual ecosystmes. we finally have a group working on restoring the everglades and they are finally working in the right direction. there will be changes to water flow and, hopefully changes in species management.

i strongly suggest that those you that wish to comment on such subjects actually educate yourselves on FLORIDA invsavies and not invasives elsewhere. there is a difference and they cannot be compared. PERIOD END!!!!!!!!

---

Do you realize that Burmese do not even fit the legal definition of a Invasive Species? Nor have they demonstrated the "invasive behavior" that characterizes many native species.

I dont think anyone knows what effect exactly they will have had on the ecology of the region. I dont think it will be as dire some people are making it out to be. Will they really be responsible for the extinction of endangered species that are already on their way out?

You just keep saying how Florida is so different and how those of us that are skeptical of your grand claim (that each and every non-native and/or invasive that ended up in Florida needs eradicated at all costs) need to get educated but you did not address any of the issues I've brought up. I'm not saying that invasives are never a problem.....I'm just saying that the analysis needs to be a little more subtle than "invasives are evil" so lets declare widespread war on them.

Won't load.