Why is it scientifically acceptable to hunt invasive species to extinction

[Suzie]

or try to hunt invasive species to extinction?  Doesn't matter if it is carp, in the missisippy or pythons in the everglades or zebra mussels in the great lakes.  For some reason humans seek to exterminate any species that moved into a new zone.  By this standard we should be eliminating the people who drained the everglades and dammed too many rivers exterminating them of native fish species.  So isn't the human the Earths most invasive species and should they be eliminated in order to preserve the ecosystem?  Or are ecosystems designed to change which is the reason that 98 to 99 percent of all species are extinct?

Food for thought as you step on that anthill

[Endy0816]

We're an invasive species that doesn't like other species doing the same and harming us, species we are familiar with or species we derive bennefit from.

Can stymie both natural and unnatural changes in populations. Not sure what a better stance would be to take.

Do we uninvolve ourselves from the wider ecosystem or do we let invasive's take over the planet?

...and for many species we are not that good at control in the first place. Nature laughs at our efforts at times.

[Raider5678]

32 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

We're an invasive species that doesn't like other species

Well, theoretically, we moved our selves around the earth. So it was natural. I thought invasive species showed up unnaturally?

[Endy0816]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Well, theoretically, we moved our selves around the earth. So it was natural. I thought invasive species showed up unnaturally?

Any species that isn't 'native' actually counts. Many have hitched a ride with us though. Hard for decent numbers to arrive normally.

[dimreepr]

"Why is it scientifically acceptable to hunt invasive species to extinction"

It's not, nor can we.

[Carrock]

Humans have effectively been made extinct in a few vulnerable environments by means of legal sanctions.

Unfortunately other invasive species have to be made locally extinct the hard way.

Feral cats on small islands is one example where this can be done.

[zapatos]

Where have we hunted invasive species to extinction? I know we've removed invasive species from the place they've invaded, but that is hardly the same as hunting them to "extinction".

Typically invasive species are removed from an ecosystem because their lack of natural predators in their new environment allows them to do undue harm to the existing and/or desirable ecosystem.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Carrock said:

Feral cats on small islands is one example where this can be done.

that's a human mistake to be reversed, the OP needs to frame the question properly.

[Carrock]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

that's a human mistake to be reversed, the OP needs to frame the question properly.

What is the proper question?

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Carrock said:

What is the proper question?

for a start, define invasive species and what it's invading and why.

[DrP]

3 hours ago, Suzie said:

For some reason humans seek to exterminate any species that moved into a new zone.

I thought they focused on this when the 'invading' species is thought to cause harm to the native wildlife.  Like the bulltoads in Australia that ate other species to extinction or the grey squirrel in the UK that has nearly wiped out the native red; or the rabbits that ate all the crops on some islands...  these species, some that were introduced to fight a problem, sometimes turn out to be worse than the problem they were bought in to solve.

 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

Any species that isn't 'native' actually counts. Many have hitched a ride with us though. Hard for decent numbers to arrive normally.

Ah, okay. 

[PhilGeis]

Science neither accepts nor rejects hunting or an y other activity.  

[John Cuthber]

Part of the issue is that we can see the "damage" done by a species we introduced (deliberately or accidentally) and we feel guilty about doing so. So we seek to "put things right".

The OP's question lacks clarity on one vital point.

We may seek to eradicate the introduced species from it's new location but we might, at the same time, be supporting it in its original habitat.

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, PhilGeis said:

Science neither accepts nor rejects hunting or an y other activity.  

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but science seems to have a lot to say about human activities. For example 'don't hunt bald eagles', 'don't hunt whales', 'don't pour raw sewage into rivers'.

[PhilGeis]

Please understand that science is a process for learning - it does not offer instructions re for example hunting or disposal of sewage.  

[zapatos]

Seems rather pedantic. I guess we can no longer say "what does science tell us about climate change?" After all, science doesn't "tell" us anything, it is just a process we use for learning.

Or, we can choose to interpret the statement in the way the speaker intended.
.

[PhilGeis]

To continue pedantry - all species are/were "invasive" - those present/the condition observed at the time of human/our observation are seen as resident.  As all is to human or any species or group's perspective (it's all about us) - we're "ok" killing  those (resident or invasive of whatever species or tribe) we don;t like esthetically or health wise, those we kill for food or sport, those eliminated indirectly in our economic efforts, etc..  in our societal organizations we do compel and kill others of our species but what would be benefit of killing those who drained the swamps - esp. as many of those activities were beneficial at the time.

btw - much  more than 98% of the world's species have disappeared.  Should we exterminate photosynthesis because of its toxic waste product?

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, PhilGeis said:

To continue pedantry - all species are/were "invasive" - those present/the condition observed at the time of human/our observation are seen as resident.  As all is to human or any species or group's perspective (it's all about us) - we're "ok" killing  those (resident or invasive of whatever species or tribe) we don;t like esthetically or health wise, those we kill for food or sport, those eliminated indirectly in our economic efforts, etc..  in our societal organizations we do compel and kill others of our species but what would be benefit of killing those who drained the swamps - esp. as many of those activities were beneficial at the time.

2

This has been discussed in the thread, besides the op is no longer with us.

[William Jodeit]

On 12/8/2018 at 12:08 PM, zapatos said:

Seems rather pedantic. I guess we can no longer say "what does science tell us about climate change?" After all, science doesn't "tell" us anything, it is just a process we use for learning.

Yeah. To be precise, science can tell us all sorts of things about the FACTS of climate change (and evolution by natural selection and many other things) but it doesn't have anything to say about what we should DO about climate change.

That doesn't mean you can't suggest whatever actions you'd like to take, based on those facts. You just can't call them "science".

 

Quote

Or, we can choose to interpret the statement in the way the speaker intended.

Or we could tell the speaker that their choice of words was rather sloppy and teach them how to think and speak better, rather than dumbing ourselves down to their level? Assuming we care about being less dumb (which is another choice that science can't make for us).

On 12/9/2018 at 6:09 AM, PhilGeis said:

Should we exterminate photosynthesis because of its toxic waste product?

That's actually an excellent point, too.

On 12/8/2018 at 10:50 AM, zapatos said:

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but science seems to have a lot to say about human activities. For example 'don't hunt bald eagles', 'don't hunt whales', 'don't pour raw sewage into rivers'.

Environmentalism is not science. That's not to say that it's a bad thing - I personally think it's one of the worst ideas we've ever had, but that's not the case I'm trying to make here. It is not a science but a philosophy.

 

Science is about facts. When you call it a matter of "science" that we should do X you're trying to smuggle your own philosophical goals and values into the conversation without any discussion, which is not the right way to approach ANYTHING in life (let alone the kind of wide-ranging societal issues that environmentalists usually try to handle).

In the very least it's a sign of clumsy, low-effort thinking, if you don't grasp what your own terminology is accomplishing and you're just imitating the way someone else once trained you to "speak". If you do grasp what you're doing then you're being an actively dishonest and a bad person. There is no case in which it represents anything useful or good.

Do you see what I mean about dumbing ourselves down to the speaker's level instead of raising them up to ours?

On 12/4/2018 at 5:15 AM, Suzie said:

So isn't the human the Earths most invasive species and should they be eliminated in order to preserve the ecosystem?

 

You first, tovarisch.

Edited October 27, 2019 by William Jodeit

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, William Jodeit said:

In the very least it's a sign of clumsy, low-effort thinking, if you don't grasp what your own terminology is accomplishing and you're just imitating the way someone else once trained you to "speak". If you do grasp what you're doing then you're being an actively dishonest and a bad person. There is no case in which it represents anything useful or good.

So I'm either an intellectually incompetent clod,  or a lying prick who is a waste of good oxygen.

Welcome to the site. I'm sure we are going to get along swimmingly.

[William Jodeit]

14 hours ago, zapatos said:

So I'm either an intellectually incompetent clod,  or a lying prick who is a waste of good oxygen.

Don't worry; my money's on the former.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, William Jodeit said:

Do you see what I mean about dumbing ourselves down to the speaker's level instead of raising them up to ours?

Well, I see an arogant dismissal of the opinions you consider beneath you.

1 hour ago, William Jodeit said:

Don't worry; my money's on the former.

I'll take that bet... 

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

I think  that is quite enough. Please focus on the topic. Additional bickering will be removed. 

 

[Strange]

On 12/4/2018 at 12:15 PM, Suzie said:

or try to hunt invasive species to extinction?  Doesn't matter if it is carp, in the missisippy or pythons in the everglades or zebra mussels in the great lakes.  For some reason humans seek to exterminate any species that moved into a new zone. 

Normally only if the introduced species is causing damage to the ecosystem. 

And eliminating the invasive species (normally introduced by human action, in the first place) should not lead to extinction. I am not aware of any instance of invasive species that no longer survive in their original environment. Are you?

EDIT: just realised this is an old thread!

Edited October 29, 2019 by Strange