Why is it scientifically acceptable to hunt invasive species to extinction

[Moontanman]

Introducing invasive species is what humans do! We intentionally and unintentionally bring a gaggle of invasive species with us wherever we go. It's completely natural for us to do so. I can't see any problem with eliminating an invasive species as long as we are using the term correctly. Invasive suggests the species is a problem, some introduced species do not become a problem, but some become intense problems, feral pigs is an example, and carp. Carp have been around so long that many people do not know they are an invasive species nor is the damage they do as obvious as the damage feral pigs manage to inflict in the environment...  

State and federal wildlife management tend to go with the invasive equals not providing a money producing resource. Florida is a great example, fish accidentally introduced by the aquarium fish hobby are invasive but fish introduced by fish and game for the pleasure of anglers are said to be well established. 

Personally I am a proponent of introducing non native fish that are in trouble in their natural range into streams here that are recovering from devastation and have open niches in their habitat that a non native fish that is going extinct could fill here. 

The dwarf sturgeon is one that I have championed actively to be released in the Poca River in WV. Before they became completely extinct 

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_sturgeon

The chinese paddlefish was one I thought should be introduced into the Mississippi River:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_paddlefish

The chinese river dolphin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiji

And the chinese alligator:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_alligator

The list of endangered species is long and sad and their introduction into friendlier habitats is controversial swinging from those who want to rewild north america with african animals to those who think that no species should be introduced under any circumstances... 

[Arete]

On 10/27/2019 at 3:49 PM, William Jodeit said:

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.

It's certainly not that clear cut.

Conservation Science is a significant field of scientific study, with journals, societies, funding agencies. 

There are multiple scientific journals that publish studies specifically on the mitigation of climate change. 

There is an entire bureaucratic structure in most developed countries to provide scientific input to governmental policy decisions. 

Applied fields of science certainly do cross over with policy, and the line between science and policy/conservation/government is necessarily blurry. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Arete

[mistermack]

On 10/30/2019 at 9:03 PM, Moontanman said:

Personally I am a proponent of introducing non native fish that are in trouble in their natural range into streams here that are recovering from devastation and have open niches in their habitat that a non native fish that is going extinct could fill here. 

I'm with you on that. To me, extinction is the enemy, and if we can prevent it, it doesn't really matter how. Of course, you don't want to advance the extinction of one species, by trying to save another, so it has to be done carefully. But if you can keep the remaining species alive, until the human population gets under control, then that's a result.