Dean, I think we are at great odds over several issues, I think it's most definitely unethical to kill another human being. I had no idea you are pro-death penalty.

I'm not real big on the death penalty - where did you get that idea??? But I am big on self defense.

So, you think it is "more" ethical to let someone kill you or a member of your family if the only option to prevent it was shoot to kill? You would lay down and let a gang or an invading army have their way with you or your family because it would be unethical to kill another human being?

Hawaiians should be spending their efforts getting rid of pigs and rats, not frogs. The pigs and rats do real damage to the ecosystem, the frogs are just a sound nuisance. Talk about misplaced priorities.

You still don't get it Axel.

Way back when, there were other "Axels" claiming pigs were a real asset to survival on the island - a great benefit. Same with goats, and sheep. The guava was seen as food for wildlife and wood for cooking, etc - and not seen as something that would smother everything in its path. The island and it's forests were too huge for them to ever cause damage. It took many decades before the detrimental effects of these new species were realized - and then it was too late and too costly to control them. Other than individual efforts on private property, there is no real attempt at coqui, pig, or rat control - so no misplaced priorities there.

When the coqui was introduced here there were new "Axels" that thought they were cute and helped spread them around. No big deal they claimed - and beneficial to the ecosystem. Now it is too late. And like pigs, rats, and mongoose, the full effects won't be known for decades to come.

Today there are other "Axels" fighting to preserve the Axis Deer and stop those who see another ecological disaster in the making on the Big Island and wish to eradicate them while there is still time. We have learned that once the full extent of the possible ecological damage is realized, it is too late for control in the vast interior of the Big Island. Introducing new species, and the law of unintended consequences, go hand in hand - with the eventual effects taking hundreds of years.

I'm assuming you think leaving the few deer alone is "ethical" and fine - they aren't as yet causing any ecological harm. But between the introduction of goats, donkeys, sheep, pigs, cattle, and now deer (all with no natural predators) - the Big Island forests and fauna that depended on them have been irreparably damaged, and many species are gone forever. And now probably every plant on the island is on somebody's menu. And in the beginning, the "Axels" got their wish.

Are you cool with this as well? There are many "Axels" here who are - with more and more "Save the Axis Deer" bumper stickers. Do you want me to send you some?

From Wikipedia:

In the 1860s, axis deer were introduced to the island of Molokai, Hawaii, as a gift from Hong Kong to King Kamehameha V. Today, the deer are plentiful on Lanai, another of the Hawaiian Islands. The paniolos (cowboys) were instructed to lasso the deer from Molokai and to bring them for shipping to Lanai. Hawaii wildlife officials believe people have flown the deer by helicopter and transported them by boat onto the island. In August 2012, a helicopter pilot pleaded guilty to transporting four axis deer from Maui to the Big Island. [15]

The deer were introduced to Maui island in the 1950s as part of a post-World War II veteran hunting opportunity. Because the deer have no natural predators on the Hawaiian islands, their population is growing 20 to 30% each year.[16] Hawaii law now prohibits "the intentional possession or inter-island transportation or release of wild or feral deer."[17]

Hawaiians should be spending their efforts getting rid of pigs and rats, not frogs. The pigs and rats do real damage to the ecosystem, the frogs are just a sound nuisance. Talk about misplaced priorities.

Axel, you do not yet live or own property in Hawaii, or am I mistaken. You are a Californian with a lot of opinions on what Hawaiians should do. And while I certainly respect your right to have an opinion, if you told me as a Californian what Louisianans should do in our state I'd say in my best southern drawl, "son, you ain't got no dog in this hunt."

I think Hawaii needs some cute little Corn Snakes for your coqui and some Cougars for your deer and pigs. Problem solved! Your welcome.

Maybe a cane toad or two would be of assistance. Since they were introduced here to clean up the cane beetle they've done wonders for our native wildlife (insert sarcastic face here).

The reason we have 'extremists' quarantine regulations in Australia is because we value our native biodiversity and agricultural industry. We are lucky enough to live on an island that is free from alot of pests and diseases that farmers on other continents have to deal with.

Hawaiians should be spending their efforts getting rid of pigs and rats, not frogs. The pigs and rats do real damage to the ecosystem, the frogs are just a sound nuisance. Talk about misplaced priorities.

Axel, you do not yet live or own property in Hawaii, or am I mistaken. You are a Californian with a lot of opinions on what Hawaiians should do. And while I certainly respect your right to have an opinion, if you told me as a Californian what Louisianans should do in our state I'd say in my best southern drawl, "son, you ain't got no dog in this hunt."

You're gonna give me some provincial argument to try to tell me Hawaii isn't my business? Come on, Keith, you can do better than that. We can talk about the Louisiana BP oil spill if you like, that was certainly everyone's business. Welcome to the 21st century, the entire globe is everyone's business.

Hawaiians should be spending their efforts getting rid of pigs and rats, not frogs. The pigs and rats do real damage to the ecosystem, the frogs are just a sound nuisance. Talk about misplaced priorities.

You still don't get it Axel.

Way back when, there were other "Axels" claiming pigs were a real asset to survival on the island - a great benefit. Same with goats, and sheep. The guava was seen as food for wildlife and wood for cooking, etc - and not seen as something that would smother everything in its path. The island and it's forests were too huge for them to ever cause damage. It took many decades before the detrimental effects of these new species were realized - and then it was too late and too costly to control them. Other than individual efforts on private property, there is no real attempt at coqui, pig, or rat control - so no misplaced priorities there.

When the coqui was introduced here there were new "Axels" that thought they were cute and helped spread them around. No big deal they claimed - and beneficial to the ecosystem. Now it is too late. And like pigs, rats, and mongoose, the full effects won't be known for decades to come.

Today there are other "Axels" fighting to preserve the Axis Deer and stop those who see another ecological disaster in the making on the Big Island and wish to eradicate them while there is still time. We have learned that once the full extent of the possible ecological damage is realized, it is too late for control in the vast interior of the Big Island. Introducing new species, and the law of unintended consequences, go hand in hand - with the eventual effects taking hundreds of years.

I'm assuming you think leaving the few deer alone is "ethical" and fine - they aren't as yet causing any ecological harm. But between the introduction of goats, donkeys, sheep, pigs, cattle, and now deer (all with no natural predators) - the Big Island forests and fauna that depended on them have been irreparably damaged, and many species are gone forever. And now probably every plant on the island is on somebody's menu. And in the beginning, the "Axels" got their wish.

Are you cool with this as well? There are many "Axels" here who are - with more and more "Save the Axis Deer" bumper stickers. Do you want me to send you some?

From Wikipedia:

In the 1860s, axis deer were introduced to the island of Molokai, Hawaii, as a gift from Hong Kong to King Kamehameha V. Today, the deer are plentiful on Lanai, another of the Hawaiian Islands. The paniolos (cowboys) were instructed to lasso the deer from Molokai and to bring them for shipping to Lanai. Hawaii wildlife officials believe people have flown the deer by helicopter and transported them by boat onto the island. In August 2012, a helicopter pilot pleaded guilty to transporting four axis deer from Maui to the Big Island. [15]

The deer were introduced to Maui island in the 1950s as part of a post-World War II veteran hunting opportunity. Because the deer have no natural predators on the Hawaiian islands, their population is growing 20 to 30% each year.[16] Hawaii law now prohibits "the intentional possession or inter-island transportation or release of wild or feral deer."[17]

OK, the trap was set, and looks like I didn't catch a deer but I caught our beloved moderator in it. Now time to close it and bring it home. Let's talk about all those non-native palms from Madagascar and New Caledonia all over your garden, not to mention all those other countries that are represented as well. They all thrive in Hawaii where they could naturalize without any challenge whatsoever, and each of these species has the potential to devastate the local ecosystem. Perhaps they should go too. Lots of "Deans" bringing in all those exotic palms, looks like we've got a real problem over there.

Dean, you're terrified of this coqui, that's really the only thing I can see that makes you so willing to walk right into this. I am sure I am not the only one who sees the hypocrisy between hating the coqui and growing an enormous collection of exotic non-native plants.

The island is a melting pot of people and species, best we can do is try to manage it, but we can't stop evolution, and evolution is about radical invasions, catastrophic changes and hybridizing as much as it is about slow genetic adaptation over eons. Globalization isn't just a human factor, it's a global factor that affects all plants and animals alike, and humans are part of the system, not some external entity that rises above it all.

Hawaiians should be spending their efforts getting rid of pigs and rats, not frogs. The pigs and rats do real damage to the ecosystem, the frogs are just a sound nuisance. Talk about misplaced priorities.

Axel, you do not yet live or own property in Hawaii, or am I mistaken. You are a Californian with a lot of opinions on what Hawaiians should do. And while I certainly respect your right to have an opinion, if you told me as a Californian what Louisianans should do in our state I'd say in my best southern drawl, "son, you ain't got no dog in this hunt."

You're gonna give me some provincial argument to try to tell me Hawaii isn't my business? Come on, Keith, you can do better than that. We can talk about the Louisiana BP oil spill if you like, that was certainly everyone's business. Welcome to the 21st century, the entire globe is everyone's business.

As I said, in this country you can have any opinion you want and voice it. It is just why would Hawaiians listen or care about what an outsider thinks about their business, and those things mentioned are very much "their" business.

And you are right, but the wrong reason, on the BP spill. That spill occurred in Federal Waters, not Louisiana waters. It was federally permitted and over seen by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), formerly the Minerals Management Service (MMS), As a Louisiana citizen, whose state was directly impacted in a very bad way, not to mention several other states impacted, please feel free to take on the federal government all you want concerning that issue.

Hawaiians should be spending their efforts getting rid of pigs and rats, not frogs. The pigs and rats do real damage to the ecosystem, the frogs are just a sound nuisance. Talk about misplaced priorities.

Axel, you do not yet live or own property in Hawaii, or am I mistaken. You are a Californian with a lot of opinions on what Hawaiians should do. And while I certainly respect your right to have an opinion, if you told me as a Californian what Louisianans should do in our state I'd say in my best southern drawl, "son, you ain't got no dog in this hunt."

You're gonna give me some provincial argument to try to tell me Hawaii isn't my business? Come on, Keith, you can do better than that. We can talk about the Louisiana BP oil spill if you like, that was certainly everyone's business. Welcome to the 21st century, the entire globe is everyone's business.

As I said, in this country you can have any opinion you want and voice it. It is just why would Hawaiians listen or care about what an outsider thinks about their business, and those things mentioned are very much "their" business.

And you are right, but the wrong reason, on the BP spill. That spill occurred in Federal Waters, not Louisiana waters. It was federally permitted and over seen by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), formerly the Minerals Management Service (MMS), As a Louisiana citizen, whose state was directly impacted in a very bad way, not to mention several other states impacted, please feel free to take on the federal government all you want concerning that issue.

Keith, this is a forum, not a senate floor where policies are decided. My point is that to try to shut up a discussion because of provincial arguments doesn't hold in today's global economy. What happens all over the planet is now everyone's business because it affects everyone. The planet is far too small to ignore what happens in Hawaii, Madagascar, Brazil and so on. There are a multitude of organizations that act locally on the behalf of supporters all over the planet. If it came down to protecting the coqui frog in Hawaii because it was dead or disappearing in Puerto Rico, then I'd be all over it trying to support the initiative by providing some funding to local organizations fighting for the coqui. Hawaiians would be dealing with world wide supporters on the protection of species even if it was "invasive".

Bottom line is I am not going to stop talking about Hawaii just because of some provincial argument.

Hawaiians should be spending their efforts getting rid of pigs and rats, not frogs. The pigs and rats do real damage to the ecosystem, the frogs are just a sound nuisance. Talk about misplaced priorities.

Axel, you do not yet live or own property in Hawaii, or am I mistaken. You are a Californian with a lot of opinions on what Hawaiians should do. And while I certainly respect your right to have an opinion, if you told me as a Californian what Louisianans should do in our state I'd say in my best southern drawl, "son, you ain't got no dog in this hunt."

You're gonna give me some provincial argument to try to tell me Hawaii isn't my business? Come on, Keith, you can do better than that. We can talk about the Louisiana BP oil spill if you like, that was certainly everyone's business. Welcome to the 21st century, the entire globe is everyone's business.

As I said, in this country you can have any opinion you want and voice it. It is just why would Hawaiians listen or care about what an outsider thinks about their business, and those things mentioned are very much "their" business.

And you are right, but the wrong reason, on the BP spill. That spill occurred in Federal Waters, not Louisiana waters. It was federally permitted and over seen by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), formerly the Minerals Management Service (MMS), As a Louisiana citizen, whose state was directly impacted in a very bad way, not to mention several other states impacted, please feel free to take on the federal government all you want concerning that issue.

Keith, this is a forum, not a senate floor where policies are decided. My point is that to try to shut up a discussion because of provincial arguments doesn't hold in today's global economy. What happens all over the planet is now everyone's business because it affects everyone. The planet is far too small to ignore what happens in Hawaii, Madagascar, Brazil and so on. There are a multitude of organizations that act locally on the behalf of supporters all over the planet. If it came down to protecting the coqui frog in Hawaii because it was dead or disappearing in Puerto Rico, then I'd be all over it trying to support the initiative by providing some funding to local organizations fighting for the coqui. Hawaiians would be dealing with world wide supporters on the protection of species even if it was "invasive".

Bottom line is I am not going to stop talking about Hawaii just because of some provincial argument.

Axel buddy, how on earth would you think I am trying to shut you up? I would think this statement I made earlier is abundantly clear on subject, "As I said, in this country you can have any opinion you want and voice it." The only point I was making was that although you are talking, they may not be listening. Now talk on buddy, all day, all night, in all media and forums, you got way more energy or inclination than I do to opine on this and many other matters.

Axel buddy, how on earth would you think I am trying to shut you up? I would think this statement I made earlier is abundantly clear on subject, "As I said, in this country you can have any opinion you want and voice it." The only point I was making was that although you are talking, they may not be listening. Now talk on buddy, all day, all night, in all media and forums, you got way more energy or inclination than I do to opine on this and many other matters.

They're listening. http://www.killerculture.com/environmental-health-your-culture-is-killing-earth/the-hawaiian-coqui/#

OK, the trap was set, and looks like I didn't catch a deer but I caught our beloved moderator in it.

The island is a melting pot of people and species, best we can do is try to manage it

Look who is really in the trap - you just conceded my point. Correct me if I am wrong - you are now stating it is not only ethical, but best to try and manage/restrict "migration."

And in managing it there are some species with a low potential to disrupt the local environment, and some with a known devastating effect.

It is not the seed of a Lodoicea or Lemurophoenix that will destroy the delicate balance here - we are almost certain of that. It is the live palm from Florida with the lethal yellow virus within. Or the Pampas Grass that spreads tens of millions of seeds to the wind every season. Or any quickly breeding animal that will have no controlling predator.

So while our "brain" has given us the ability to destroy ecosystems, it also gives us the ability to identify and make wise choices to prevent such destruction. So - back to the original question, and my original point - it is not only ethical to manage and restrict human introduced known or suspected disruptive species, it would be unethical not to.

So I will stick to my original answer in response to the original question, "Is it ethical for humans to restrict plant and animal species migration?"

Of course the answer is yes. But it comes down to who determines what is restricted.

I think the bigger question should be if the "introduced" species regardless if plant or animal will have negative consequences for native species?

Here in Cincinnati almost all the native skinks had been eradicated by humans either directly or indirectly. In the 1950's a boy brought home several european wall lizards from Italy and released them. Since the 1950's they have established themselves in several neighborhoods and are filling the ecological niche the skinks once inhabited. They are a protected species and their population is held in check by predators, mainly birds and feral cats, the lack or abundance of rock outcroppings, and severe winters. This is a good example of a non-native species finding a place in a new world.

Bad examples would be the coqui frog, mongoose, pig, goat in Hawaii, pepper tree and melaleuca in Florida, cane toads in australia, crown of thorns in French Polynesia and the GBR and tumbleweed in the western united states.

You know what they say...The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think your view of hell depends on which side of the road you stand on.

I think the bigger question should be if the "introduced" species regardless if plant or animal will have negative consequences for native species?

I agree Jake - but one of my points was, "how do you know ahead of time?"

History has shown us that often times the unintended consequences of species introduction into the more fragile ecosystems on Earth (like islands) is unknown, unpredictable, and irreversible. So restrictions should err on the side of caution.

I think the bigger question should be if the "introduced" species regardless if plant or animal will have negative consequences for native species?

I agree Jake - but one of my points was, "how do you know ahead of time?"

History has shown us that often times the unintended consequences of species introduction into the more fragile ecosystems on Earth (like islands) is unknown, unpredictable, and irreversible. So restrictions should err on the side of caution.

Spot on. Hence the old phrase the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Now if we are re-introducing a species once lost due to human action/in-action, yet again, a different question.

*eating popcorn*

*Keeps Reading*

I think the bigger question should be if the "introduced" species regardless if plant or animal will have negative consequences for native species?

I agree Jake - but one of my points was, "how do you know ahead of time?"

History has shown us that often times the unintended consequences of species introduction into the more fragile ecosystems on Earth (like islands) is unknown, unpredictable, and irreversible. So restrictions should err on the side of caution.

Better get rid of all those dypsis, Dean. Better err on the safe side.