There’s a big scare going on in my state regarding an invasion of Burmese Pythons. Apparently there is a danger that, if left unchecked, this imported subspecies will decimate various forms of native animals in Florida, and in the southern states.
We must at least prevent and contain their migration beyond the Everglades, which has apparently been somewhat overwhelmed by them already. This is just the most recent in a long line of ecological crises brought upon the peninsula by man’s importation of incompatibles.
In my lifetime, I’ve seen the state’s ecologies threatened by high-profile man-made invasions of the Maleluca tree, the “walking catfish,” the “love bug,” and the “water hyacinth” to name a few. It is disconcerting to drive through my old neighborhoods see countless numbers of iguanas sunning themselves on the sides of canals; there were none when I was a child in the 1960s.
I became an immigration restrictionist after briefly living in Miami almost 20 years ago. Ever since, I have found it sadly ironic that both science and academia are quick to raise “nativist” alarm about invasive species and subspecies of plants and animals but have strict taboos against applying the same sort if dispassionate scientific analyses to the migration of humans.
In biology, it is completely understood that not all plants and animals are equal, or equally beneficial to every local ecology or geography. Even those most closely related biologically are not always compatible if placed in artificial proximity to one another. There are thousands of scientists around the world who, using statistical methods, determine and designate various invasive plants and animals that should be targeted for removal from places where their behavior patterns are harmful to the existing state of nature.
There are entire departments at universities dedicated to preventing the invasion of species and subspecies. They often work in concert with government to manage, prevent the invasion of, or eradicate species deemed harmful. Here are a couple of examples, both from the University of Florida:
IFAS Assessment of the Status of Non-Native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas
The process by which recommendations are derived is well-documented and open to review. When plant species are assessed, data are collected from all available resources by designated IFAS staff. The IFAS Assessment system is typically applied to species in each of three climate zones in Florida: north, central, and south. The IFAS Assessment has three components. The main one is the Status Assessment and from this the use of the Predictive Tool or Infraspecific Taxon Protocol may be directed.
If a species is already prohibited by state or federal law no further assessment is needed because the species cannot be recommended for use. All other species are initially evaluated using the Status Assessment and as this is completed, information is organized to provide Results that describe the status of the species for four specific topics:
* Ecological impacts * Potential for expanded distribution in Florida * Management difficulty * Economic value
University of Florida News—Florida python invasion: expanded and still growing, UF researcher says
The Burmese python, native to Burma in Southeast Asia, is one of the world’s largest snake species. The largest found in the Everglades was 16 feet long and 152 pounds.
Mazzotti said there are a few places where eradication of the snakes might be possible, such as the Florida Keys.
“We need to do something so that five years from now, we’re not looking at an exponentially bigger population in those areas because we didn’t go in and get the first ones before they started breeding,” he said.
In most places, he said, the best strategy is likely a larger, focused effort to contain and reduce the population by tracking, capturing and euthanizing the reptiles.
There is so much fuss made in academia and by government over invasions of species that they have developed intricate protocols for managing them. Science clearly shows that plants or animals situated in disparate places over many generations often become so differentiated that their willy-nilly transplantation is an unwise proposition at best. Biologists and their academic colleagues learn from statistics and act upon what they discern; they are wise and unencumbered by political correctness.
If we were to present statistical information about immigration to biological scientists, substituting names on the spreadsheet columns and rows with those related to generic plants and animals, they would be quick to recommend action to stem the invasions. On the other hand we’d likely cause riots if we presented similarly-masked statistics about invasive plants and animals to academic and scientific experts in the social or political sciences, leading them to believe the numbers represented humans. Still, I’d like to ask them when they plan to release their scientific protocols related to immigration.
To me this dichotomy between the sciences is just more proof that modern egalitarian liberalism is a religion for the blind.