From: randy@rls.UUCP (randall l. smith)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Hornets and wasps and bees oh my!
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:07:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Internet

wild@eng.umd.edu (Randolph F. Wild) writes:
> In article <11012@rls.UUCP>, randy@rls.UUCP (randall l. smith) writes:
>> The P. germanica have are non-native species and should be eliminated
>> from North America.  They are scavengers and pests as well.  And that's
>> why I said what I said. 
>
>   This is not a sufficient reason to exterminate a species.  By this
> reasoning humans should be exterminated from North America as well. 

Humans *are* a done deal.  There is *no* way to peal back time.  Your
exaggerations are pointless and feeble.  

> This shortsighted definition of native ignores the fact of evolution
> of species propagation. 

Absurd.  Evolution and continental drift occurs over millions of years
and even more generations.  Hawaii has been assaulted in the last two
hundred years.  Our instantaneous (in geologic and evolutionary terms)
introductions serves to destroy Hawaii, not rebuild it.  You have no
idea of what you're talking about. 

>  All of the flora and fuana of Hawaii with the exception of a handfull of 
> species are not native.  

You really don't have a clue.

> By your reasoning we should kill off the Iiwi bird to extinction.  Just
> because a species is not native doesn't mean it doesn't mean it has no
> value. 

So, by your reasoning, Norway Rats should be allowed to propagate freely
on Hawaii?  Picking a feeble straw man example like the Iiwi bird hardly
supports your contention.  We were talking about an aggressive species
out-competing and otherwise destroying native species not some fragile
species that is extinct everywhere else. 

Non-native species often outcompete the native species and this goes
doubly so for Hawaii.  Hawaii was a great island of biodiversity.  It
is becoming less and less diverse all the time thanks to the introduction
of virulent competitors.  The Iiwi creates no discernable difference
in the ecological balance.

Your saying that everything has a right to stay wherever it lands and
that serves evolutionary pressures.  You would be right, but the scale
of time is off several magnitudes.

If any definition is short sighted, it is yours.  Human introduction of
species has meant the destruction of many, many species.  If you like
the sudden disruption of a world that is losing continuity by losing
diversity, I only wish you and your ilk were born a few hundred years
from now.  We are the last generations to enjoy a planet that has such
beauty and wonder. 

Before long, the genitic pool will be squandered because of fools like
yourself that can't understand the basic mechanisms of competition and
genitic biodiversity. 

I strongly feel that since we are responsible for putting destructive
species there, we need to eliminate them from the introduced parts of
the world.  We have shown an ability to drive species we don't like to
near extinction, like the puma, rattlesnakes, timber wolf as well as
many, many others. 

Why not use those horrible skills to restore a balance we have upset?

Just because a species is introduced does not mean is is a done deal
and we can't or shouldn't do anything about it.  The eurpoean honey
bee is everywhere in North and South America and I'm not supporting
the elimination of them.  There are just some species that are too
aggressive or too damaging to an ecosystem and should be eliminated. 
P. germanica is just one such species. 

- randy

uucp: randy@rls.uucp
bang: <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy
inet: rls!randy@cis.ohio-state.edu