Kill invasive species
Conservationalists are usually against killing animals however they are leading a campaign against American mink in Britain. The mink is an invasive species that first arrived in the UK for fur farms in the 1950s. There were quickly escapees that began colonising Britain. The advance of the mink has damaged native species such as water voles. They have become such a problem that a cull has become necessary. This is a problem that is replicated around the world as land that was once cut off from other areas have been opened up by man. We have transported species on ships, planes and other forms of transport without considering the impact it may have on local biodiversity. Should we attempt to solve the problems we have caused by stamping out the invasive species?
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Invasive species spread quickly, damage habitats and can drive other species to extinction.
According to Daniel Simberloff's article 'Introduced Species: The Threat to Biodiversity & What Can Be Done':
' - Compared to other threats to biodiversity, invasive introduced species rank second only to habitat destruction, such as forest clearing.
- Of all 1,880 imperiled species in the United States, 49% are endangered because of introduced species alone or because of their impact combined with other forces.
- In fact, introduced species are a greater threat to native biodiversity than pollution, harvest, and disease combined.
- Further, through damage to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and other human enterprises, introduced species inflict an enormous economic cost, estimated at $137 billion per year to the U.S. economy alone.'
Using the example of the American Mink:
(the Mink) '...have had a devastating impact on local river wildlife, affecting birds such as moorhens, coots, widgeon and teal, fish and most markedly water voles, which have declined by more than 95% over the last 50 years.'
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12323300 - 'Alien invaders: American mink removed from Scotland' )
According to conservation ranger Eimear Magee in the BBC article 'Escaped mink could be "disaster" for Donegal' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11435659) the Mink 'breed prolificly', 'have no natural predators here' and 'don't just take enough to feed themselves, they destroy the whole colony'.
If we can avoid the destruction of habitats and the deaths of local wildlife that depend on them just by humanely culling one species that does more harm than good, we should do so..
dont humans do this already? When someone steps on our property we go to war. What about the Africanized Bee? This is a bee that was made by a scientist to live in the jungle, but is instead a very irritable bee that flys in massive swarms (10 hives worth) and will chase anyone for over a mile just for being "near" their hive. They dont give you much time to get away either, they just attack and kill. Yes, these bees do, in fact, kill people. Their swarms are so massive itd be rare to escape such a chase. These bees should be eliminated from existance, they are not doing us any good.
Kill outsiders if they damage the good of the majority - this is a dangerous attitude for humans to take. While it is only being applied to animals (in fact, many of the more dangerous invasive species are plants, fungi and parasites) it doesn't take much for the human psyche to dehumanise someone they don't sympathise with.
We caused the problem, it is our responsibility to fix it.
Invasive species are normally brought over into environments other than their natural habitat by humans, either deliberately for farming or accidentally, having escaped or not been detected or not recognised as a danger. It is up to humans to see that the threat is removed and the habitats restored to their original state. If we aren't comfortable with killing the animals, we should be thinking about the needless deaths of other animals that at least should have been there in the first place.
It isn't entirely our fault. Some species are adapted to parasitic relations with humans, they are designed to be difficult to contain and easy to spread. The problem began long before humans had the scientific knowledge to realise there was a problem or the means to deal with it.
An unnatural situation requires an artificial solution.
If the species was in its natural habitat, it would be under conditions where it could be controllable - it would have a supply of what it naturally feeds on and there would be some way of keeping its population down, either predators, diseases or seasonal lulls in food supply. It is because it was moved that it has gone out of control. In an artificial situation, an artificial means needs to be employed to control it.
What about cases where a species is bred by humans to the extent that it hasn't existed in the wild in that form and doesn't have a natural habitat?
Sometimes it is natural for one species to dominate a habitat and wipe out several others. We could be redressing a balance where there isn't supposed to be a balance.
Taken to its logical extreme...
We should cull humans. Humans have spread all over the world, have no natural predators, breed fast and cause overpopulation problems in small areas, change habitats in ways that are harmful to other species, hunt other species to extinction beyond what we need for food and spread diseases.
Unlike a Mink, which only knows how to kill, eat and breed, a human is self-aware and intelligent enough to realise they are damaging their environment, this is the wrong thing to do and that they can think up a way to repair the damage they have done.
Not a practical sole/long term solution.
While it works as a short term fix for the mistakes we have made, we should be looking into ways not to introduce harmful species in the first place and maybe ways to defend otherwise delicate habitats that are in danger of destruction. We can't just keep making mistakes and then destroying them, we'll end up with something we can't wipe out one day.
But if we don't kill them, then we can't wipe them out today.
The more new extinctions their are the less diverse our world is.
Our world is so divers that we only know to about the what we think is the beginning and it probally was not. We know about the dinosaurs and the cave men but we don't know if there was life before. And now scientist are still discovering plants and animals so why kill off species if we can keep them under controll.
yes we should beacuse the invasive species are taking over the land for the species that are natural to their habitat. They take more speceies when they invade a habitat rather when they settel down and start living there.
What do you think?