1. The link goes to an item about Burmese pythons in Florida, which would be invasive the other way.
    As Gamecock cringed on another thread, I cringe at the term “invasive species”. In Nature, animals roam within the range of their requirements for victuals, drink and shelter. If they roam to a place where they can flourish, they will establish themselves there. In James MIchener’s classic “Hawaii”, he describes such a process for birds and insects first and finally for humans in the Hawaiian Islands.
    The evolutionary concept is that the more successful species will dominate and perhaps displace the less successful. That will change the local ecology. This happens whether the newcomers are “invasive”, carried by humans, or if they simply find their way into the suitable territory.

  2. “Carried by humans” is a no-no. As is “man-made”. Hydrazines in mushrooms must be good because they are natural. Same ones found around Cape Canaveral are contamination requiring an unlimited clean-up budget. Those are man-made. Nature — good, man — bad. Any six-year-old knows that.

  3. But Gene, my body is a temple with billions of bacteria and tiny arthropods riding along. Surely I contribute to their well-being by living.

  4. What about the invasive species that have been imported into the US? The fire ant from Argentina has caused massive destruction, the water hyacinth, the walking catfish or my favorite, the grass carp imported by Texas Parks and Wildlife to improve bass habitat. Some like the fire ant were accidental but most are due to stupidity.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *