Interesting points. At the same time alien/introduced/invasivespecies that truly alter an environment, out compete others, and in general, lead to ecological mayhem - I am not aware of any examples outside of, maybe, humans. There exists serious economics benefits to many in the realm of 'alien species battles'. The lionfish, Pterois volitans and, possibly, P. miles, are a good example. Even quasi-scientific articles continue to villify them, describing their voracious appetites and ability to out-compete all native species. Yet stomach anlysis fails to support those contentions. There is no question that it has successfully established itself, do date from New Hampshire to Colombia, throughout the Caribbean and it would be a miracle if it is eradicated. But significant ecological perturbation has yet to be proven. That does not stop dive shops, REEF, and a plethora of other organizations from putting together derbies, round-ups, and the like geared to the illusion that this is the way to eradicate the pest. It should be noted that all that organize such events charge for it, thus deriving a benefit from the lionfish. In areas where scuba diving was waning, the arrival of the lionfish has been a boost. Thus, despite the generally accepted view that eradication is near impossible, it is turned into a cash cow - cash fish. Indeed a fresh assessment of this issue should be welcome as if it is accepted that the 'Earth' is changing, why is it blieved the biota of the various localities will remain unchanged. International trade, globailzation, and like activities are conducive to such introductions and it would be through such new thinking that the issue would receive a fresh understanding. Esat Atikkan
--- On Fri, 6/10/11, Judith S. Weis <[email protected]> wrote: From: Judith S. Weis <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] EcoTone: Speaking of species and their origins To: Date: Friday, June 10, 2011, 2:30 PM IMHO, they are attacking a "straw man." I haven't seen many scientists, managers, policy-makers etc. getting all worked up about non-indigenous species who integrate well into the environment, get a green card, pay their taxes etc. The ones that are being attacked and for which they are spending lots of money are the truly invasive ones that cause ecological and economic damage - eating up everything in sight, outcompeting native species for food, space etc. - and generally taking over - affecting the environment in negative ways. > An essay published in the June 8 issue of Nature is causing something of a > stir. Eighteen ecologists who signed the essay, titled "Don't judge > species on their origins," "argue that conservationists should assess > organisms based on their impact on the local environment, rather than > simply whether they're native," as described in a recent Scientific > American podcast. > > In the essay, Mark Davis from Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota and > colleagues argue that adherence to the idea of non-natives as "the enemy" > is more a reflection of "prejudice rather than solid science," wrote > Brandon Keim in a Wired Science article. As the authors wrote, the > "preoccupation with the native-alien dichotomy" among scientists, land > managers and policy-makers is prohibitive to dynamic and pragmatic > conservation and species management in a 21st century planet that is > forever altered by climate change, land-use changes and other > anthropogenic influences. As a result of this misguided preoccupation, > claim the authors, time and resources are unnecessarily spent attempting > to eradicate introduced species that actually turn out to be a boon to the > environment; the authors cite the non-native tamarisk tree in the western > U.S. as an example of this... > > Read more and comment at > http://www.esa.org/esablog/ecologist-2/speaking-of-species-and-their-origins/ >
