Killing an Invasive to Save Natives

If an organism is a non-native invasive it should always be removed humanely from the environment. The controversy should not be what to do with an identified invasive species, but what constitutes an invasive species. It’s the opinion of some scientists that while non-native species add extra strain to the environment, they balance themselves out by participating in the environment (they both consume more energy, but add more energy). This is almost certainly the case in my area of SFL, where the urban environment can no longer sustain native species, but can support adaptable exotic (but not invasive) species. And often exotic species occupy new niches and don’t compete with native species, an example being anole species in FL. The four widespread species (green, brown, bark, and knight anoles) occupy completely different niches (twig dweller, terrestrial, trunk dweller, canopy giant respectively), and apparently seem to coexist. The python issue is more complicated however. Their primary range is some of the last remaining true wilderness in Florida (the Everglades and Big Cypress), rather than an already degraded environment. Are they simply an exotic, or a destructive invasive? The evidence seems to point to pythons having a serious negative impact on native small mammal populations, and thus they should be humanely removed, but that is far from settled. Regardless they are one of the most beautiful and impressive animals I’ve had the privilege of observing in the wild.

In conclusion, if an animal is not sustainable in the environment it needs to be removed. But as humans themselves are part of the environment, we can affect our environment by introducing exotics, which can sometimes improve rather than degrade the environment. So we need to scientifically discern whether an exotic is beneficial or harmful (invasive) to the environment before removing it.

4 Likes