So tell me, where exactly IS that line between what is native to Florida and what is not? At what date is it that separates those species that do belong here and those that do not?
And then explain to me, please, why it is not a completely and totally arbitrary designation.
Playing Devil's advocate here, obviously.
Neither of those question can be answered simply "as is".
Burmese Pythons can
never be considered "Native". They can only, at best, be considered "Naturalized". Which, at this point, they probably could be considered naturalized as they fit the definition.
However, just because something does establish itself in a given area, does not mean it belongs there or should remain.
The decision for any invasive species to be removed (or non-invasive) is arbitrary designation. However, just what manner of "arbitrary" it is could easily be up for debate as well. As the term itself could mean an impulsive decision as well as simple majority rule or preference.
There are numerous invasive species in the U.S. There are numerous invasive species everywhere and either they cause a problem or they do not. Horses of today, for instance, are not native to the U.S.(the American Horse,
Equus scotti, was hunted to extinction long ago) however, they serve a designated purpose in most instances. Even feral (I'm being technical here because the U.S. does not have "true" wild horses) horse populations are routinely culled to control their numbers. As far as I know, these horses are not considered "Native to the U.S." despite being here for hundreds of years.
Nutria were brought over for the fur trade and have established themselves as a nuisance in Louisiana where they are controlled by year round by bounty programs opened in 2005 due to the fact that while their meat is edible and their pelts usable, there is not high enough demand for people to just go out and remove them without incentive and the populations were getting out of control. They have been there since the 1930s and are still not considered "Native Louisiana Wildlife".
One of the primary concerns of invasive species pertains to their survivability against native species. Obviously, horses and nutria have predators, however, animals such as the Lionfish really have no "natural" enemies in U.S. waters and are booming further because of it. While I cannot fully speculate on the amount of animals that are capable of taking down and feasting upon healthy Burmese, it is not significant enough to knock it down from "Apex Predator" status. Along with the American Alligator, they essentially rule the food chain in that area. Which is automatically going to cause people to have a stronger bias against them to want to remove them.
Basically, what it all comes down to is the potential an animal has to ruin a given habitat or cause problems.
It's already incredibly apparent that the affect Burmese Pythons are having in the Glades has been grossly exaggerated, but that is not a reason to say "just leave them there" and it is not a reason to assume they are not causing some issues in one manner or another.
However, because we are talking about Florida here ... What is most idiotic about Florida is that Burms cannot be hunted within the Glades, only in the surrounding areas. Within the Glades, they are protected because they happen to exist in a "delicate ecosystem". Therefore, by Florida's own moronic manner of managing itself, it has been allowing the Burmese population to thrive all on their own. That's part of the reason why these hunts have been and will continue to be practical but not.
At the same time, Florida is doing nothing about the Deering Estate Boas that have been thriving themselves in excess of twenty years, but honestly, those animals need to be removed as well.
There is no obvious "usefulness" to either that boa population or the python populations that have established themselves there. In fact, all they have really done is give people fuel to throw on a fire built on fear mongering, hatred, prejudice, fantastical assumptions and all manner of lovely things that hurt those who keep these types of animals. Sure, we could say the American Alligator probably appreciates the munchable snakes it makes out of these on what I am sure is a frequent basis, but is that enough to justify not removing them? Not really.
There are always concerns in removing an apex type predator such as we have seen in recent years with the Coyote. Due to less Mountain Lions, Wolves, Bears and other larger predators to compete with Coyotes, they have begun to spread out of control in many of the South West regions to the point many have "shoot on sight" recommendations for them. I do not believe such an issue would exist by removing the pythons from the Glades, and the history of the Glades prior to the establishment of the Burmese Pythons would likely substantiate this belief.
It is a double standard though, which cannot be disputed. It is widely known that feral cat populations do more damage in the Glades than the pythons, but my opinion on that is they need to be removed by lethal means as well. Spaying or neutering a feral cat will not keep it from killing off wildlife.
So, in short, it is an arbitrary decision in some manner, yes, it always will be, but that does not necessarily negate that it should be done. There is no logical reason
not to remove the Burms from the Glades. This is not really one of those "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" scenarios.
Removing the Burms, if possible, would further prove they were not the destructive masses they were believed to be. Florida itself has been destroying the Glades for years while pulling the wool over less than observant individuals' eyes and pointing fingers at its scapegoat numero uno. Leaving them there is just going to perpetuate the same asinine rhetoric that has been going on for years.
