[shifuimam]

So there's this island in Thailand (yay! a rhyme!) that is composed entirely of oceanic crust. It's uninhabited by humans. Millions of seabirds nest there annually, as well as hundreds of thousands of sea lions.

Over the past 100 years or so, passing ships have introduced rats/mice, rabbits, and cats to the island's animal population.

The result? Some (not all) species of seabirds that typically nest on the island ended up nesting elsewhere. They didn't become nearly extinct or anything.

However, since 1995, "specialists" have been worrying their pretty little heads over what to do about the cat population, which they saw as a threat to the seabird population of the island.

The solution? Kill all the feral cats on the island.

Now, if you live in a rural area, you will know that rats, mice, and rabbits all breed like crazy, which is why farmers like having cats on the property - they play a significant role in controlling rodent populations, because kitties love eating little bunnies and mice and chipmunks and other adorable little furry friends that Disney has, at some point, featured in an animated film.

Shockingly enough, the rat, mice, and rabbit population exploded on the island, and the rabbits in particular ended up decimating most of the vegetation on the island - which the very seabirds they were trying to "save" rely on for nesting and the like.

Their new solution is to drop poisonous bait all over the island to kill most of the rats, mice, and rabbits...and then trap and kill the rest of them.

Of course, nobody's mentioning what's going to happen if a sea lion decides to snack on a rat that's full of poison.

This kind of stuff just stuns me. It would appear to your average person that the ecosystem of this particular island had adapted well enough to the introduction of new species. However, some piddly humans decided that it wasn't "right" and decided to play god and control it, so that it seemed "better" to them.

I sometimes wonder how such people explain how the planet managed to get along before humans were around to deliberately add and remove animal populations to areas.

Anyhow, the article is here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/...it_infestation

[ort888]

Stupid liberals are so stupid. Am I right?

[shifuimam]

You really like making completely idiotic, baseless statements, don't you?

If you're going to post in the PWL, at least make a valiant attempt to post something that is remotely intelligent.

Do you agree with the people behind this plan? Do you believe that it was wise to murder thousands of cats, thereby removing a primary (and the only, in this case) natural predator of the rodent population? Do you believe that it's a good idea to introduce lethal poison into the animal population, which may very well be carried into the very species this group is attempting to "save"?

If all you want to do is post bitter comments about how unfair it is that conservatives and liberals don't always agree with each other, do us all a favor and crap somewhere else.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Maybe he was just fessing up. Heh.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by crash harddrive 

maybe he was just fessing up. Heh.

I LOLed.

[sek929]

If humans ****ed up the first time why don't they consider that they'll **** up the next time?

This reminds of that show on Discovery about saving the planet. One idea was to put millions of tiny mirrors in the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.

Now maybe I'm not a smart scientist-type, but doesn't this sound like the worst ****ing idea you've ever heard? I'm the first to agree that we need to develop new technology in order to lessen the extent we pollute this planet, but at some point can't we all agree that no single human (or even group) fully understands how our entire world works and stop trying to 'fix' it constantly?

[shifuimam]

If we did that, just think about how many people would be out of work!

It's one major reason why I get incredibly sick of people screaming that humans are the cause of global warming. It's pretty asinine to think that we're the primary force of nature for the entire planet...seems like the sun would have a lot more to do with since it's...you know...bigger. And has been around for a hell of a lot longer.

Every single time well-meaning humans introduce something into a local ecological system, it ends up being a mistake. Ladybugs were brought over to control the aphid population...except that now there's a huge overpopulation of ladybugs. Whatever happened to just letting nature take its course?

I still can't get over the blatant fact that the people behind this snafu didn't stop to think about how quickly the bunny population would skyrocket when they removed that animal's only predator on the island.

[Laminar]

It reminds me of Bart the Mother.

Bart struggles with Skinner on top of the building, and the lizards glide to the ground where they start to decimate pigeons in Springfield. The town considered the pigeons to be a nuisance, so they are in fact delighted that the lizards have eaten all the pigeons. As a result, Bart is thanked for this and honored with a loganberry scented candle by Mayor Quimby. Lisa is worried that the town will be infested by lizards, but Skinner assures her they will send in Chinese snakes, then gorillas and then winter will take care of the rest.

[ort888]

Here's the thing, it's way to easy to wait until a situation has played out and then offer up criticism of what happened.

What you are trying to do is offer up one example of where environmentalism went wrong and put it forward as evidence that anytime people get involved with trying to help the environment that they are wasting their time. I'm just not buying it. I'm not playing the game... you are way too transparent.

[shifuimam]

I'm not playing any game, and notice that my subject line included the very important "sometimes" - meaning that at times it's good, but at times it's bad.

I'm saying that this particular situation was poorly thought out from start to finish, and that more often than not, people should just let survival of the fittest do its thing...you know, like how Earth functioned before humans decided they were more powerful than nature.

Also, if you have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion, as I have already said, kindly thread-crap elsewhere.

[subego]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This kind of stuff just stuns me. It would appear to your average person that the ecosystem of this particular island had adapted well enough to the introduction of new species. However, some piddly humans decided that it wasn't "right" and decided to play god and control it, so that it seemed "better" to them.

The ecosystem didn't adapt. The cats weren't killing off the rabbits, which is why they introduced a toxic virus and rabbit fleas to spread it. That's what killed off the majority of rabbits and allowed the ecosystem to rebuild, until (about 40 years later) there were too few rabbits and the cats started to eat the birds.

Interesting that the Yahoo article, clocking in at a hefty 675 words, failed to mention it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It's one major reason why I get incredibly sick of people screaming that humans are the cause of global warming. It's pretty asinine to think that we're the primary force of nature for the entire planet...seems like the sun would have a lot more to do with since it's...you know...bigger. And has been around for a hell of a lot longer.

You don't know anything about this topic. Why talk, then?

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm not playing any game, and notice that my subject line included the very important "sometimes" - meaning that at times it's good, but at times it's bad.

Every single time well-meaning humans introduce something into a local ecological system, it ends up being a mistake.

...

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm saying that this particular situation was poorly thought out from start to finish, and that more often than not, people should just let survival of the fittest do its thing...you know, like how Earth functioned before humans decided they were more powerful than nature.

Your logic is terribly confusing. You advocate for a "survival of the fittest" model, which "worked before humans"... and yet, the problems you're discussing were created by humans.

The entire reason the island is a nesting ground for its animals is probably because it had no annoying mammals to disturb them. Then humans came along and introduced mice, rabbits and cats... and your response is "we shouldn't have any responsibility for this; let nature work it out!" Completely illogical thinking on your part.

Well, surprise surprise, nature already worked it out, over hundreds of thousands of millions of years – the seabirds went to nest where there were no predators. And in 100 years, human actions totally turned things on its head. Without intervention, the probable result seems to be the loss of a very, very important nesting ground for some threatened seabird species.

Invasive species introduced by humans are one of the biggest threats to wildlife diversity on the planet (probably just after humans taking wildlife habitat, I'd imagine).

I still can't get over the blatant fact that the people behind this snafu didn't stop to think about how quickly the bunny population would skyrocket when they removed that animal's only predator on the island.

It seems that while your spelling and grammar are top-notch, your reading comprehension needs work: the answer to your repeated question is clearly stated in the article. Apparently the poison technology of 10 years ago wasn't reliable enough to ensure only the rabbits and mice would be affected. So they went for only the cats, and waited to see for sure if the very low populations of rabbits and mice would for sure explode, at such time they could deal with the problem:

Liz Wren, a spokeswoman for the Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania, said authorities were aware from the beginning that removing the feral cats would increase the rabbit population. But at the time, researchers argued it was worth the risk considering the damage the cats were doing to the seabird populations.

"The alternative was to accept the known and extensive impacts of cats and not do anything for fear of other unknown impacts," Wren said. "Since cats were eradicated, the grey petrel successfully bred on the island for the first time in a century and the recovery of Antarctic prions has continued since the eradication of feral cats."

Now, the parks service has a new plan to finish the job, using technology and poisons that weren't available a decade ago.

You don't seem to understand the ramifications of how humans are increasingly making extinction the valid mechanism for "survival of a species." At this moment in time, most biologists and/or ecologists feel pretty confident that we are in one of the greatest extinction waves in human history – commensurate to those ones you hear about where the dinosaurs died, or where 75% of life disappeared from fossil records, or where something momentous like an asteroid impact or massive volcanic eruptions can even be seen in the geological record.

Except, of course, there's not really anything like that happening now. There's just us.

greg

[Laminar]

[Shaddim]

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.
I dunno why she swallowed that fly,
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,
That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I dunno why she swallowed that fly -
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old lady who swallowed a bird;
How absurd, to swallow a bird!
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I dunno why she swallowed that fly -
Perhaps she'll die

There was an old lady who swallowed a cat.
Imagine that, she swallowed a cat.
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird ...
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I dunno why she swallowed that fly
Perhaps she'll die

There was an old lady who swallowed a dog.
What a hog! To swallow a dog!
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat...
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird ...
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I dunno why she swallowed that fly
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old lady who swallowed a goat.
Just opened her throat and swallowed a goat!
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog ...
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat.
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird ...
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I dunno why she swallowed that fly
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old lady who swallowed a cow.
I don't know how she swallowed a cow!
She swallowed the cow to catch the goat...
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog...
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat...
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird ...
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I dunno why she swallowed that fly
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old lady who swallowed a horse -
She's dead, of course.

[Doofy]

Problem with bleedin' hearts (and Libs) is that they never know when to stop messing and just leave things alone. See bank bailouts as another example.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

...all of these answers which conveniently ignore the fact that we caused said problems by "messing" in the first place.

Personal Responsibility: I guess it's only for me and my money now™

greg

[Shaddim]

Most of the initial "messing" was a long, long time ago, before we understood that non-indigenous species could be harmful.

What's our excuse now?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

The excuse now, as I noted, is Personal Responsibility: owning up to the fact that we screwed up a lot because we didn't know any better, and trying to fix the situation.

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Most of the initial "messing" was a long, long time ago, before we understood that non-indigenous species could be harmful.

Even if they knew, I don't see the typical 19th century sailor giving a ****.

[LegendaryPinkOx]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.

Wow, my dad used to read that to me. I don't even remember how old I was, but that took me back. Carry on.

[Andy8]

World’s Largest Dolphin Slaughter

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Now that article qualifies as "bleeding heart" material.

greg

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You really like making completely idiotic, baseless statements, don't you?

If you're going to post in the PWL, at least make a valiant attempt to post something that is remotely intelligent.

Do you agree with the people behind this plan? Do you believe that it was wise to murder thousands of cats, thereby removing a primary (and the only, in this case) natural predator of the rodent population? Do you believe that it's a good idea to introduce lethal poison into the animal population, which may very well be carried into the very species this group is attempting to "save"?

If all you want to do is post bitter comments about how unfair it is that conservatives and liberals don't always agree with each other, do us all a favor and crap somewhere else.

hmmmm . . . nah, I think ort888 was right on the money. Liberals are stupid as sh*t.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You really like making completely idiotic, baseless statements, don't you?

Now, now.

If you're going to post in the PWL, at least make a valiant attempt to post something that is remotely intelligent.

This has never been a requirement of the PWL.

If all you want to do is post bitter comments about how unfair it is that conservatives and liberals don't always agree with each other, do us all a favor and crap somewhere else.

What other forum would you deem more appropriate than the PWL for this sort of comment? It doesn't really belong in the iPod forum, I imagine.




Please, be civil to each other. Disagreement is fine. Bitterness is fine. Pointing out the absence of a logical argument is great. Make attempts to be civil.

[shifuimam]

My apologies.

Although, FWIW, my comment about thread-crapping applies to the entirety of MacNN. There's been a bit of an increase in the rate of thread-crapping (mostly in the Lounge and PWL) lately...it's getting kind of annoying, if you ask me.

WRT previous comments about personal responsibility: I kind of side with Shaddim on this one - yes, humans originally changed the ecosystem of this island, but at some point we need to pull back and just let nature take its course. So far, all that's been done in this situation is what liberals in general tend to do - make quick, knee-jerk decisions to "solve" a perceived problem, the result of which is almost inevitably damaging or negative in the long run.

It was a bad idea to remove the entire feline population of the island. It's a worse idea to pummel the entire island with poison-laced bait, because it will likely end up harming the species they're trying to "save". They're going to keep layering on bad idea after bad idea until this particular locale is a complete mess, thanks to well-meaning human intervention.

Not only that, but who is funding all of this? Is this really a priority, particularly in today's turbulent global economic climate? I would imagine there are far more critical things in need of funding than attempting to manipulate the ecosystem of a small, rather inconsequential piece of land in the nether regions of the Pacific Ocean.

[besson3c]

It sure didn't take long for somebody to try to make this into a left/right issue.

[ort888]

Yeah, it happened in the first post.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Yeah, it happened in the first post.

I don't agree with that, I think it just set up the usual sorts of knee jerk reactions.

Shifuimam: do you disagree with most nature intervention type issues, including thinning herds of deer here in Indiana? Or, is your general point that it can be funny how sometimes our meddling makes things worse? Obviously the meddling happens on both sides of the political spectrum and has little to do with politics, this is just something that humans seem good at doing (or bad, depending on how you look at it), sometimes with good results, sometimes with bad.

Trying to perfect nature and play God seems a little arrogant, but then again, why do we take these odd drugs to feel better? Why do we play around with ways to modify our crops? Ways to prolong life?

Trying to perfect nature seems nothing new to me, it's just a fundamental part of our modern existence, good or bad.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

WRT previous comments about personal responsibility: I kind of side with Shaddim on this one - yes, humans originally changed the ecosystem of this island, but at some point we need to pull back and just let nature take its course. So far, all that's been done in this situation is what liberals in general tend to do - make quick, knee-jerk decisions to "solve" a perceived problem, the result of which is almost inevitably damaging or negative in the long run.

It was a bad idea to remove the entire feline population of the island.

Did you even read the posts in this thread, or the article you posted? Why was it a bad idea to remove the feline population? By all accounts something had to be done if the relevant seabird nesting was to continue. They removed the feline population, and knew that there was a likelihood that would involve later taking care of the rabbit/mice population; now, they're doing that. How is that a "bad idea" again?

As to "letting nature run its course": you still don't acknowledge my entire point, which is that it increasingly seems that humans are responsible for mass disruptions of natural wildlife around the world on a scale seen perhaps only a few times in Earth's history (that we know of). It's increasingly clear to anyone who actually follows this topic (which you don't, I'll just point out) that "letting nature run its course" will just mean that we'll kill off an enormous number of animals which could probably remain alive without a whole lot of effort on our part. Are you just unequivocally stating that we as human beings have no moral obligation to at least do something to give these animals a chance to survive, despite the fact that they're dying directly because of what we've done?

You're just making statements about "good" and "bad" with no reasons given as to why it's so.

It's a worse idea to pummel the entire island with poison-laced bait, because it will likely end up harming the species they're trying to "save". They're going to keep layering on bad idea after bad idea until this particular locale is a complete mess, thanks to well-meaning human intervention.

You keep stating this, but I don't see anything about this in the article. Why, exactly, will this poison harm the animals they're trying to save? The article explicitly states that they're only killing the mice and rabbits now because new technology and poisons weren't available when they first went after the cats.

If they could successfully kill off the cats without harming "the animals they're trying to save," why are you so sure they can't do the same thing to the mice and rabbits?

Not only that, but who is funding all of this? Is this really a priority, particularly in today's turbulent global economic climate? I would imagine there are far more critical things in need of funding than attempting to manipulate the ecosystem of a small, rather inconsequential piece of land in the nether regions of the Pacific Ocean.

There are far more things in need of funding than AIDS research, or microprocessor research, or transport proteins in fish gills research... but that doesn't mean we stop funding everything except what needs to be funded. It seems to me the island is perfect for this closed-system ecology experiment; you have fairly discrete and identifiable populations, and these people are stating hypotheses, manipulating variables, studying the results and learning more about the interactions between these species. This is straight-up ecology.

Finally: why do you care? It's on the other side of the world. It's not your money.

greg

[ort888]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't agree with that, I think it just set up the usual sorts of knee jerk reactions.

Why else did he post it in the political lounge? He could have posted it anywhere, and called it, "Look at what happened on this island"... but instead he choose to phrase it as an attack on "bleeding hearts" ...his entire reason for posting it was to mock environmentalists in an attempt to reenforce his world view that environmentalism is a bad thing. It's not even a political issue. It's only a political issue in his head, because to him, everything is a political right vs. left, us vs. them issue. His world exists in black and white. Things are good or they are stupid. Things are right or they are wrong. There is no middle ground.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Why else did he post it in the political lounge? He could have posted it anywhere, and called it, "Look at what happened on this island"... but instead he choose to phrase it as an attack on "bleeding hearts" ...his entire reason for posting it was to mock environmentalists in an attempt to reenforce his world view that environmentalism is a bad thing. It's not even a political issue. It's only a political issue in his head, because to him, everything is a political right vs. left, us vs. them issue. His world exists in black and white. Things are good or they are stupid. Things are right or they are wrong. There is no middle ground.

You might be right, you might be wrong, but we need to give her the benefit of the doubt. We can't just carry our grudges and recounting of history from thread to thread and then just react according to our gut feelings. I think we should try to get back to responding to what people say as if they have no history here - respond to what is being said, not to the character and perceived motivations of the poster.

Of course the problem with trying to make this place more civil with these sorts of suggestions is that I'm sorry some of my greatest fans will drudge up some history in order to call me a hypocrite. I'm not perfect, but why should we have to be perfect in order for our points to be valid?

[subego]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

So far, all that's been done in this situation is what liberals in general tend to do - make quick, knee-jerk decisions to "solve" a perceived problem

Read an article on Yahoo... Check.
Do no further research... Check.
Post a self-serving political rant on the internet... Check.

Sounds like you nailed it.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

not to the character and perceived motivations of the poster

Don't these come from considering the poster's history?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Don't these come from considering the poster's history?

Yes, and it is natural to keep a log of a poster's history, I certainly do. However, it is a mistake to think of every poster as a static, unchanging entity with motivations that are precisely the same from thread to thread. I know some people make it a career out of some sort of pursuit, Abe was famous for that, but many/most others have different motivations that mutate and evolve constantly.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Read an article on Yahoo... Check.
Do no further research... Check.
Post a self-serving political rant on the internet... Check.

Sounds like you nailed it.

That's what got me as well! The sheer irony made me giggle like a schoolgirl.

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That's what got me as well! The sheer irony made me giggle like a schoolgirl.

greg

The thing is, I agree with the rough form of the argument she's trying to make, if it were, say, about PETA or something. I just can't get behind it when the opening premise is the world would be a better place if only those Tasmanians were more familiar with barn cats.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well... PETA is slightly different, because they wouldn't advocate killing animals at all.

But if you're talking about tree-hugging hippies in general, then yeah, we're in agreement. But there definitely has to be a rational and moderate place to meet.

Plus, she said it herself: it's some godforsaken island in the Pacific somewhere. Why the fuss?!?

greg

[Doofy]

I say we take off and nuke it from orbit.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well... PETA is slightly different, because they wouldn't advocate killing animals at all.

To be honest, I kind of like the Tasmanian style of bleeding heart...

"Let's give the bunnies the plague, gas all the cats, give the bunnies the plague again, and then hunt down and shoot the left over rats and mice."

It's sort of like they want to bury the hatchet... in your SKULL.


Also, since there's so much worry about the sea lions, as anyone who lives in an urban area knows, rats and bunnies (yes we have them) tend to run away from anything larger than a small dog.

I'm guessing this means, even when they feel the poison coming on, they can still get away from two tons of blubber that has no feet.

Anyone who lives in an aquatic area will tell you this has something to do with why sea lions generally don't hunt rodents.



On a serious note, for anyone who is really concerned, they've already used this poison on islands that have sea lion populations. Google is your friend.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I say we take off and nuke it from orbit.

Hey now, cruelty to animals have been a criminal offence in England since 1820s or thereabouts...

greg

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well... PETA is slightly different, because they wouldn't advocate killing animals at all.

Don't those hypocrites euthanize 1000s of animals /yr?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

No idea! I don't know much about those types (Greenpeace/PETA/etc.) of activist organizations at all. Do you know how/why they euthanize animals?

greg

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

So there's this island in Thailand (yay! a rhyme!) that is composed entirely of oceanic crust. It's uninhabited by humans. Millions of seabirds nest there annually, as well as hundreds of thousands of sea lions.

Macquarie Island is Subantarctic Island belonging to Australia.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I say we take off and nuke it from orbit.

Macquarie Island and LV-426 do look fairly similar if you squint your eyes at dusk

[hyteckit]

Animal control gone bad ==> Man made Global Warming is FALSE

Humans can screwed up the ecosystem == Humans can't control (or have an influence on) the ecosystem

I see the great line of reasoning from shifuman. As always, he draws conclusions from thin air.


Hey I say, if humans can screw up the ecosystem with animals, they can screw up the ecosystem with carbon dioxide. Right shifuman?

[sek929]

He is a she.