Pythons limit Bobcat presence in the Everglades

[Pantheraman]

"The modeling they conducted showed that python density was one of the most important limiting factors for bobcats on tree islands. If the density of pythons is high enough—about three per square kilometer—then Buckman and her colleagues found that bobcat occupancy was likely to be zero in the area.

It isn’t clear why, though. Pythons have been observed preying directly on bobcats before, but it could also be that the pythons outcompete bobcats for prey, pushing the felines out of areas with too many of the snakes."

TWS2021: Pythons limit bobcat presence in Everglades - The Wildlife Society

I think the scariest part is the "compassionate conservationists" wanting to protect these snakes. (No seriously, I actually spoke with one by email."

 

[Sheather]

I think the scariest part is the "compassionate conservationists" wanting to protect these snakes. (No seriously, I actually spoke with one by email."

My morals generally align with compassionate conservation, so far as that I am morally opposed to introduced species culls (and yes, I know that introduced species can, do, and will cause species extinctions.)

I've discussed this at length a number of times before in other venues, and have learned it really is an issue that people from different perspective won't see eye to eye on, so I don't usually mention it. Since I don't have any moral issues with animal captivity (with a couple exceptions) and I enjoy zoos and think well-run facilities are beneficial to animals - or I wouldn't be here - this puts me in a conflicting position with other animal rights supporters too.

Just wanted to say, there are probably more people with outside-the-Zoochat-mainstream opinions than are usually heard about because I assume most of them just avoid debating the hot button topics.

Even if I were in support, the Burmese python population is likely so high that eradication has become impossible. But there are at least five small cat species in the natural range of the Burmese python, so if it is any consolation, either the bobcat or another ecologically similar species will likely evolve to coexist with the python over time. Many native animals have already demonstrated adaptations to deal with unfamiliar introduced species in a remarkably rapid timespan such as rakalis feeding on cane toads and avoiding the toxic glands.

 

[birdsandbats]

Even if I were in support, the Burmese python population is likely so high that eradication has become impossible.

Passenger Pigeon has entered the chat.

Never say never.

 

[Sheather]

When pythons start nesting in mass aggregations, it may be easier!

 

[birdsandbats]

My morals generally align with compassionate conservation, so far as that I am morally opposed to introduced species culls (and yes, I know that introduced species can, do, and will cause species extinctions.)

I've discussed this at length a number of times before in other venues, and have learned it really is an issue that people from different perspective won't see eye to eye on, so I don't usually mention it. Since I don't have any moral issues with animal captivity (with a couple exceptions) and I enjoy zoos and think well-run facilities are beneficial to animals - or I wouldn't be here - this puts me in a conflicting position with other animal rights supporters too.

Just wanted to say, there are probably more people with outside-the-Zoochat-mainstream opinions than are usually heard about because I assume most of them just avoid debating the hot button topics.

Even if I were in support, the Burmese python population is likely so high that eradication has become impossible. But there are at least five small cat species in the natural range of the Burmese python, so if it is any consolation, either the bobcat or another ecologically similar species will likely evolve to coexist with the python over time. Many native animals have already demonstrated adaptations to deal with unfamiliar introduced species in a remarkably rapid timespan such as rakalis feeding on cane toads and avoiding the toxic glands.

But more seriously, what advantage, ecologically, is there to doing nothing and leaving the pythons alone. None. It will only cause problems. As the pythons spread outside the Everglades (and they will) they will take their ecological destruction with them. That is - eliminating mammals everywhere they go. This will probably cause the extinction of species, if not at least extirpation from large areas. Now imagine that same situation with pythons controlled. Even if they aren't eliminated, keeping their numbers down can only be a good thing.

 

[Sheather]

But more seriously, what advantage, ecologically, is there to doing nothing and leaving the pythons alone. None. It will only cause problems. As the pythons spread outside the Everglades (and they will) they will take their ecological destruction with them. That is - eliminating mammals everywhere they go. This will probably cause the extinction of species, if not at least extirpation from large areas. Now imagine that same situation with pythons controlled. Even if they aren't eliminated, keeping their numbers down can only be a good thing.

I agree with you as far as the ecology of it, but come from a moral position that it's unethical for humans to kill animals, so it's the lesser evil to leave things be. For compassionate conservationists it's not unethical for animals, which lack the reasoning or means to live in other ways, to kill animals to survive.

AFAIK this is the sentiment behind compassionate conservation, for humans to not interfere so far as choosing one animal species over another.

 

[birdsandbats]

I agree with you as far as the ecology of it, but come from a moral position that it's unethical for humans to kill animals, so it's the lesser evil to leave things be. For compassionate conservationists it's not unethical for animals, which lack the reasoning or means to live in other ways, to kill animals to survive.

AFAIK this is the sentiment behind compassionate conservation, for humans to not interfere so far as choosing one animal species over another.

This is an example of inaction meaning more than action. If you choose to do nothing you are choosing the pythons over the other (native) animals. End of story. Have fun all your environmental and economic consequences of your broken ecosystem, I hope you made the right choice.

 

[Sheather]

This is an example of inaction meaning more than action. If you choose to do nothing you are choosing the pythons over the other (native) animals. End of story. Have fun all your environmental and economic consequences of your broken ecosystem, I hope you made the right choice.

Thanks for being hostile after asking me a question

 

[birdsandbats]

Thanks for being hostile after asking me a question

I'm not trying to be hostile, simply realistic. Compassionate conservation doesn't work.

 

[Coelacanth18]

I agree with you as far as the ecology of it, but come from a moral position that it's unethical for humans to kill animals, so it's the lesser evil to leave things be.

AFAIK this is the sentiment behind compassionate conservation, for humans to not interfere so far as choosing one animal species over another.

I'm glad you've shared your ideology here @Sheather, as it's good to hear a variety of viewpoints on a site that does have a tendency towards groupthink on a lot of issues. Conservation culling is not a black and white issue for everyone and there are ethical trade-offs involved either way.

I am in agreement with @birdsandbats, however; I think the lesser of two evils is to control the python population directly rather than letting pythons push out native species and negatively impact the entire ecosystem. The crux here is that humans have already interfered with the system, insofar as humans are the reason Burmese pythons exist in the Everglades to begin with. In a way, allowing the pythons to compete with native predators unchecked is actually the side of this argument that is pro-human involvement, since it accepts that allowing artificial reshaping of the environment is preferable to restoration of the environment to its original state.

If you were to look at it from a utilitarian perspective (which is how I prefer to approach environmental issues), more harm is caused by not culling the pythons (including deaths of many other species) than by culling them (in which case only the pythons die).

Additionally, from a perspective of moral responsibility - that is, the relevance of whether humans directly cause death to animals or allow death of animals to happen via inaction - I would argue there is no functional difference between the two in this situation. Humans are just as morally culpable for not controlling the python population as they would be for controlling it - and the overall outcome for most species would be worse in the former than in the latter, potentially making humans *more* culpable rather than less.

 

[Chlidonias]

I agree with you as far as the ecology of it, but come from a moral position that it's unethical for humans to kill animals, so it's the lesser evil to leave things be. For compassionate conservationists it's not unethical for animals, which lack the reasoning or means to live in other ways, to kill animals to survive.

AFAIK this is the sentiment behind compassionate conservation, for humans to not interfere so far as choosing one animal species over another.

So, if you have rats and mice in your house and they are eating the food in your cupboards and contaminating surfaces with urine and faeces, do you just buy more food to allow them to continue living unmolested, and continue simply cleaning up after them? And is it the same for cockroaches and fleas and head-lice?

 

[Kakapo]

I'm glad you've shared your ideology here @Sheather, as it's good to hear a variety of viewpoints on a site that does have a tendency towards groupthink on a lot of issues.

This is the most reasonable phrase said in the whole thread. Really Zoochat and zoochatters tends to act as a unique-way-of-thinking in many things and I would add that members tend to mock very loudly at any member that have different ideas even in the cases when this ideas are much more reasonable than the general thinking here. You has been actually very polite!

However, I must agree here with the general thinking. I can understand the reasons of compassionate conservation, I also would feel bad if killing magnific creatures such as pythons and many other invasive species in many areas of the world. But I think compassionate conservation should be understood in a different manner. It's not "we only can kill animals for survive" (that would leads to only kill farm animals, or dangerous animals that are confronting us), but rather "we only can kill animals for a reason", what includes combating crop/garden/house pest, recollecting for scientific/medical research, keeping a population of a species under control, and infinite other reasons that include ecological equilibrium. What is not acceptable is to kill animals just because why not, because said animals looks creepy to us. Yes, those gardeners that get paranoic because a spider wander in their terrace... the easy solution step on it. This is the kind of things that we must avoid. But kill animals that are invasive (and invasive don't means only "species that stabilishes or increases in the wild outside native range", it means also "species that affect negatively the native ecosystems, fauna, flora or human beings") it's a reason to be considered as fair. Always with enough exhaustive documentation that demonstrates the need of the culling. I actually like exotic species stabilished in non-native areas if they don't affect or affect minimally native biota and ecosystems. It's not that I favour the introduction of species, but for those that became stabilished I only would cull the damaging ones. Unfortunately these tend to be the vast majority of them. And pythons in Florida are VERY damaging for populations of native potential preys. So yes, there is a reason for kill them. It's convenient to remind that the second most important cause of species extinction today is the introduction of invasive species (the first cause is habitat destruction). It seems paradojical that the most ultradestructive species in this planet, the species that it's causing solely the Sixth Mass Extinction in the history of Earth (the Fifth wiped out the dinosaurs) dares to pronunciate about saving species and ecosystems, however, we are also the only species that are able to do this!