I don’t know about y’all, but at least in my case, whenever I see an invasive species (when hiking…), I get goosebumps (my face turns red … although if I see an injured one, my first thought is how I could help it …) cause I hate the species that aren’t in the place where they actually belong.
One pretty common example is Columba livia domestica. They’re everywhere in my city and everything is so dirty because of them (nobody does the cleaning either ). I don’t take pictures of them, basically because they’re too abundant in my city that I’m just tired. However, if I see a native bird, such as an ovenbird or a mockingbird, even though they’ve extremely common, I will capture them.
EDIT (to be more specific): I love pigeons, in Argentina, we’ve got plenty of native ones, but I always think of the impact non-native pigeons have on native animals. It’s not that I hate the animal itself, but the impacts that it causes.
I completely understand the feeling- not so much with pigeons, more so with foxes and cats where I live. I don’t think any person with a love for nature could see the impact that some species have on the ecosystem and have a positive attitude towards them. It’s not that I vindictively hate the animals themselves, but I do painlessly euthanize every individual I can. It’s not hating the individual animals, more hating the effect they have on the environment.
Well, you’re wrong here, I love many introduced species here, I don’t like the fact they were brought in, but I can’t feel anything negative for the specimens I meet, even those that I have to kill (I only kill certain plants before they’re too spread out in the area), I think any species is magnificent. OP said “I hate the species…”, not “hate seeing the species”, so that’s a pretty big difference imo.
I understood everything completely, and as you wrote about observing, observations of introduced species are very valuable for many reasons, so ignoring them doesn’t make much good, other than saving your time.
The subject says “don’t like SEEING.” Let’s not devolve into arguments, please.
I don’t like seeing invaders that are direct counterparts to a native species. So if I’m in the range of American holly, I don’t like seeing Chinese holly. If I’m in the range of American bittersweet, I don’t like seeing Oriental bittersweet. If I’m in the range of sugar maple, I don’t like seeing Norway maple.
Just a note on this, in my opinion its still important to record invasive species and species in general, even if you dont like them. Its still important data.
To be honest i cant think of many invasives i do like seeing (might be an interesting thread), but i particularly dislike coming across cats and foxes that have killed things and not eaten them. Also coming across areas that were previously good for orchids but are now completely destroyed by wild pigs
I think the obvious answer is humans. I like people, but don’t really like running into crowds of humans out in the wild and don’t post them on iNat. And while there have been humans here in coastal California for many thousands of years, I think the term invasive species still fits quite well.
It does make me sad when invasives are crowding out native plants and animals, and especially if they’re really destructive like the spotted lanternfly and emerald ash borer. But even though I don’t like seeing them I think it’s important to document the spread so I still record them. And even though it’s depressing to see I can still appreciate that some of them are beautiful in their own right… the spotted lanternfly makes me so mad, but it’s still a gorgeous bug. It’s not their fault they were introduced to a new area… I think what makes me mad is more, the reminder of the blatant disregard for natural ecosystems by humans for many centuries… the lanternfly wasn’t introduced on purpose but the tree of heaven was, and they might not be doing so well without it.
That’s a good point. I think most people just hate the whole situation with invasives.
What I really hate is when people keep messing things up for weird reasons. Some animal rights activists have released GOLDFISH into rivers before. Goldfish are domesticated animals. They were bred to live in captivity, and they wont survive in the wild. (too colorful, and they just don’t have what they need to live outside of captivity) They think they are helping the goldfish, when they are actually messing up an ecosystem until all of the poor goldfish get eaten. (Sorry, this is a huge rant, I own exotics and I hate it when people act like exotic pet = wild animal. Exotics are a huge ethical thing and not every species is the same.)
Yes, in most cases it is not great having introduced species around. Even worse, if it is indeed one of those invasives that negatively effect local wildlife.
However, in most cases this weird rage against invasives seems to be a lost battle anyways which does not make too much sense. It feels much too emotional for me.
It happened, it´s shit, but now we have to move on and learn to live with them and try not to repeat our mistakes - only in relatively few cases on e.g. encolesd regions like islands one might stand a realistic chance to reverse this mistake with a lot of effort.
For example, the Harlequin Ladybeetle has not been in Germany when I was a kid. I remember being happy about the two-spotted Ladybeetles in spring… that might be about 30-something years ago now. I don´t know when I last time saw the latter, but the Harlekins are among the first and the last I see in Germany each year. I am amazed by how their spread across the globe can be followed in a lifetime… now here in the South Americas it feels like having rewinded time a bit, but the end result will be the same. I still like seeing them, they are beautyful and they do teach a story. Killing them does not do anything. They are everywhere and they are here for good.
Exotic pets are wild animals. That doesn’t make it appropriate to release them though, even if they are native. But it does mean that it may not be a good idea to keep them as pets, because they aren’t domesticated. And when people see them as domesticated, that’s actually a real problem, because then they buy them unprepared and might abandon/neglect them or something.
It’s kind of like whales, they don’t do well in captivity, but it’s not safe to release them either. All the ones who are already in captivity must remain, but they shouldn’t be bred and they shouldn’t capture more. Except that many captive animals can be rehabilitated, and some might be able to be released even without rehabilitation.
Culling animals is not painless and is not euthanasia. And it’s wrong. Sentient beings have a right to live. Non-lethal control should be used whenever possible, and it can actually be more effective, as few animals would want to mate with a dead animal, but they might mate with a sterile one, especially if they still have gonads. Sterile animals can mate-guard and prevent reproduction.
Just wanted to note here that that’s not entirely true. There are some domesticated animals that are considered ‘exotics’. just because they aren’t seen that often. Case in point: the domestic ferret. They’re still considered exotics because they’re not anywhere as common as cats, dogs, or birds, and not all vets have the training to treat them. For that matter, there are municipalities in the US with poorly written ‘exotic pet’ bans that outlaw things like fancy goldfish.
I don’t consider domestic animals to be exotics. Only wild animals are exotics. And the term “exotic” is ridiculous anyway, because it also has the meaning of “foreign” which is so ironic because only wild organisms can be native. In Australia, a budgie or sulphur-crested cockatoo is native, but domestic dogs and cats are introduced. So they should be considered exotic if anything.
Instead of “exotic”, people should say “wild” or “undomesticated”. The term “exotic” is confusing, as it seems to have 3 different definitions that must not be conflated: unusual, non-native, and wild.