Here in South Florida we have a lot of invasive species from reptiles to fish and birds. This is a basilisk lizard AKA Jesus lizard known for running across ponds. ETC. Not the best picture as he/she is sunning on a chair on the porch. Their are a few living around my property but like squirrels not enough to shoot so I just leave them be.
invasive
- Thread starter coastal drifter
- Start date
I don’t understand this - when there are “enough to shoot” it will be much harder to get rid of them.
Upvote 0
why would you not shoot a invasive species then maybe you could enjoy native species that they compete with.
Upvote 0
Some people enjoy watching them some enjoy killing, the choice is yours. I like them better than the bugs they eat
Upvote 0
See, I can understand that reasoning. Unfortunately, its only applicable while their numbers are small, and, they're still taking food from native critters. Starlings may have been nice to watch when there were a relative few in Central Park, but look at them now.
Upvote 0
Sometimes I'm in the same boat, till I start seeing damage, But that lizard would make a really good challenging target running across the water.
Upvote 0
When I was little I unwittingly made an ecology experiment in the local pond. It had been long ago stocked with white, orange and copper colored goldfish, people would walk around the pond and say, "ooh, look at the goldfish", dogs would jump in the pond and get covered with muck, bullfrogs would croak in the evening, deer would come drink in the mornings, periodically someone would dredge the pond, and it had been that same way for over 50 years. I liked fishing at other local ponds and came home one day with a bucket of little bluegills and a couple catfish. They stayed in an aquarium for some time but then I thought to "just let them go", and put them in the goldfish pond. The next spring I was surprised to see little bluegill fry around the edge of the pond. Within 2 years I couldn't see any gold fish. There were a couple brown-fish (copper colored goldfish), but nothing bright, and there were many bluegills and a few little catfish. A few years after that the community filled the pond and returned it to meadow. So a non-native fish was out competed by natives, but not native to that pond, and the "return to the wild" meant the pond and all the associated habitat and enjoyment was lost.
I hear and read of this general opinion, supported by state laws on habitat restoration and hunting, that native is good and non-native is bad. But I have to wonder sometimes. Does a barred owl really look all that different from a spotted owl to their rodent prey, and wouldn't either be better than no owl? Is a collared Eurasian dove all that different from a mourning dove? Is the "invasive" trout species outcompeting the endangered trout because the streams are getting a little warmer and only the fittest are surviving? What is bad and what good, or are both but anthropomorphic delusions? Would those iguanas in Florda still be pests if there were no canals to dig, garden trees to eat or patios to defecate on? Or would they just be more gater food?
Would there be some other bird species plaguing American farms if the house sparrows, starlings and rock pigeons were not introduced centuries ago? American crows, blackbirds and chickadees, maybe? After all, it's not just the birds, it's the food for the birds that breeds more birds. Some other native bird can always sieze the opportunity (like crows did); the introduced pest birds had already evolved to take advantage of human activity, they arrived pre-adapted for that habitat, ironically habitats made by modern humans, who were themselves invasive. Whoa!
Do non-native, invasive, pest, mean different things in different places at different times?
I hear and read of this general opinion, supported by state laws on habitat restoration and hunting, that native is good and non-native is bad. But I have to wonder sometimes. Does a barred owl really look all that different from a spotted owl to their rodent prey, and wouldn't either be better than no owl? Is a collared Eurasian dove all that different from a mourning dove? Is the "invasive" trout species outcompeting the endangered trout because the streams are getting a little warmer and only the fittest are surviving? What is bad and what good, or are both but anthropomorphic delusions? Would those iguanas in Florda still be pests if there were no canals to dig, garden trees to eat or patios to defecate on? Or would they just be more gater food?
Would there be some other bird species plaguing American farms if the house sparrows, starlings and rock pigeons were not introduced centuries ago? American crows, blackbirds and chickadees, maybe? After all, it's not just the birds, it's the food for the birds that breeds more birds. Some other native bird can always sieze the opportunity (like crows did); the introduced pest birds had already evolved to take advantage of human activity, they arrived pre-adapted for that habitat, ironically habitats made by modern humans, who were themselves invasive. Whoa!
Do non-native, invasive, pest, mean different things in different places at different times?
Upvote 0
I say shoot on sight. Otherwise they'll be the next Burmese python.
Or how about the Barred owl problem in the northwest? They let them breed and breed, and now they have to hire marksmen to cull almost HALF A MILLION of them and their hybrid offspring because they are literally eating all the food that the native spotted owls need to survive. They are eating those little guys into extinction.
Why can't people figure out that anything invasive into an area that isn't set up or designed for them will eventually destroy the ecosystem that was currently there living in mostly homeostasis?
Put the bleeding heart away, lock and load, and do your duty!
Or how about the Barred owl problem in the northwest? They let them breed and breed, and now they have to hire marksmen to cull almost HALF A MILLION of them and their hybrid offspring because they are literally eating all the food that the native spotted owls need to survive. They are eating those little guys into extinction.
Why can't people figure out that anything invasive into an area that isn't set up or designed for them will eventually destroy the ecosystem that was currently there living in mostly homeostasis?
Put the bleeding heart away, lock and load, and do your duty!
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
The agama in my area create a mess with their poop. They get treated the same as rats and mice. If I have a shot I take it.
Upvote 0
them are some pretty lizzards, so far I only seen one on my way out to Okeechobee shooting range
Upvote 0
You mean the America BISON? Which is still alive today?
Also, you're referring to which invasive species? That would be humans... which I'm pretty sure you're a part of that species. Maybe not... apparently one can identify as they wish these days.
Upvote 0
Me too.
Some shooters think they are biologists. That is simply a justification for what they are doing. Invasive or not if it's a legal and ethical target the choice is a personal one.
I eat everything I kill. I don't like eating lizards so I don't kill them. Other guys look for an excuse to kill. That's just fine for them and excuses to kill are many.
For me a shotgun shell or green army men are more fun. That's what it boils down to. If you have more fun killing with a shot than hitting an inanimate object it is more of a personal expression than anything else.
I do like to take down game. Don't get me wrong. That's just the hunter gatherer hardwired in our genetic code. But I don't kill anything for the sake of a groovy target. I'm more about the hunt. I couldn't imagine a lizard would be much of a hunt.
Invasive species make great hunting. But a hunters value in population control is negligible. IMHO it's an excuse for a behavior that a person feels the need to justify. I'm certainly not against someone shooting an invasive lizard. I just don't pay much attention to the excuses they use to justify it. It's killing for pleasure plain and simple. Fine for some guys. Just not the choice I make for myself.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Bison are native to North America. Buffalo are native to Africa and Asia. Similar animals. Very different.
Just like antelope. Not a native species. The pronghorn is native to North America. Antelope are African.
Similar, yes. Potato, no.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Still doesn't fix the fact you said they're extinct. They're clearly not. I can walk into a restaurant and eat a bison burger right now. With potato or patato.
Upvote 0
“A hunters value in population control is negligible.”
That may be one of the dumber comments I’ve ever read on a forum.
That may be one of the dumber comments I’ve ever read on a forum.
Upvote 0