Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agree with Cal Worth - it'sssss People!
Followed closely by mosquitos.
Re: pit bulls - at about 30 fatal attacks per year.
There are 10 times as many pitbulls as bears, USA - so if bears killed more than three people in a year, a bear would be more dangerous, no? Actual deaths by bear, USA, last year? 4 per year, average. Why are they still around? What is their purpose?
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57821
I can only think of two creatures that serve no valuable purpose to the continuity of nature, and they are the ones that I do my best to eliminate when they are at my home:
Yes possums eat them but they aren't the only thing they eat. They eat a lot of insects. I've seen possums drag off a dead rabbit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
This.
In North America, yes, house sparrows and starlings wouldn't be a bad thing to go. But not in Eurasia, where they are native. Do local extinctions count for this thread?
BTW, house sparrows don't directly kill bluebirds, they just compete with them for nest sites.
My friends with bluebird nesting boxes would beg to differ.
They are unquestionably individually cute. I've seen many videos of them enjoying food handouts at rescues. They even make adorable happy little sounds. They are precious.
But they cause so much suffering. Not in a sporting way, but by slow, infected, excruciating starvation. It's really a horrible way to go.
Less controversial... WASPS. Just spent the last few days with one hand swelled up like a balloon from a wasp sting in the finger.
I would selectively eliminate invasive species from non-native habitats. We can start with pythons in Florida, rats and cats on most islands, Emerald Ash Borer in North American, and so on.
Well, this is a vague and slippery slope. Go back far enough in most species' evolution and you'll probably find they were all "invasive" at some point. Given an opportunity, creatures will expand to take advantage of suitable habitat. I suspect you meant species that spread as a result of deliberate or particularly stupid, thoughtless human activity. This would include spread of infectious diseases; flu, Covid-19, you name it. They invade and establish themselves in new "habitats" (er, hosts) too. Humans just happened to be the vector.
Last edited by Parnassia; 07-18-2023 at 02:30 PM..
I would selectively eliminate invasive species from non-native habitats. We can start with pythons in Florida, rats and cats on most islands, Emerald Ash Borer in North American, and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parnassia
Well, this is a vague and slippery slope. Go back far enough in most species' evolution and you'll probably find they were all "invasive" at some point. Given an opportunity, creatures will expand to take advantage of suitable habitat. I suspect you meant species that spread as a result of deliberate or particularly stupid, thoughtless human activity. This would include spread of infectious diseases. They invade and establish themselves in new "habitats" (er, hosts) too.
Indeed, a slippery slope.
I get the argument against invasive species where they can be identified as harmful and stopped.... but nature is ever changing, and migration and expansions happen. The world is not a static environment.
I think there would be plenty of insects left for the animal world to eat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.