PDA

View Full Version : Japan to exterminate non-natives



Maciamo
Oct 27, 2002, 10:29
Sorry, this is not strictly about whales, but it regards the protection of wildlife in Japan.

Japan eyes action on threat-posing nonnative wildlife (http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=235848)


TOKYO ? The Environment Ministry decided Thursday to enforce stronger measures on exterminating nonnative wildlife species in Japan that pose threats to the ecosystem, including the mongoose, ministry officials said.

Does this mean they are going to fall all non-native trees, unroot all un-native flowers and hunt down all animal species like imported dogs, cats, etc. ? That is what the article says. What's more, if you consider like me that humans are also animals, foreigners shall be aware that they will be exterminated for being non-native.:mad: :confused:

thomas
Oct 27, 2002, 11:00
It's not only dogs, cats and trees. Japan seems to experience temporary "pet fads", so a lot of tropical species are illegally imported: it's fashionable to collect beetles, all kinds of reptiles, tropical fish and plants etc. Just imagine you wake up one morning and find an alligator emptied your pond full of precious koi, lol.

Mongoose are definitely a thread since the have no natural enemy in Japan unless they decide to import large numbers of cobra snakes. How did they get to Japan anyhow?
:confused:

moyashi
Oct 28, 2002, 22:16
@ mongoose
Ferrets are popular pets and will see at pet shops around town so I guess a mongoose would be wanted for similar reasons.

@ non-natives
Does this include Gaijin?

@ wildlife / flora
It does make sense in a way since an imported species could take over and kill off normally native species in turn causing troubles for the eco-system.

I would prefer exportation for the animals but ...

Management is a big concern for me.

@ aligators
hehe, they've been caught in drain ditches and what not around town. koi pond is unlikely but under your car is more of a possiblity.

@ unwanted pets
Many pets get dumped into parks or into the wild when the landlord finds out about them, over 90% of all rental apartments are NO PETS. But you know people, they'll still take the chance but many pets sadly find themselves out in the wild creating havoc.

thomas
Oct 29, 2002, 06:30
@ unwanted animals

Do they still have these "concentration camps" for stray dogs and other unwanted pets? People could just turn in their dogs anonymously to have them "exterminated".

moyashi
Oct 29, 2002, 08:47
hmmm ... we have a Dobutsu Kanri Senta- (Animal management center) up in Sapporo which is like the US's SPCA.

Hmm, Braun Ovens too? ummm, I guess so, that is if you consider the American ones to be "concentration camps" then the ones in Japan should be listed as such too.

Don't you have them in Europe?

thomas
Oct 29, 2002, 16:15
We have animal asylums where stray dogs are kept for a certain period of time before being sent to the happy hunting-grounds. Nahoko told me that these places are called "hokenjo" in Japan, public health centers that also take care of stray animals. They have/had these "one-one boxes" (?) where pets could be left without questions asked.

moyashi
Oct 30, 2002, 23:33
ummm, I think that's "wan wan" not "one-one" :p

wan wan = bow wow / woof woof ... a dog barking.

hokenjo = pound
dobutsu kanri center = spcea (urggg ... what is this in America?)

I wish more people would neuter their pets.

thomas
Oct 31, 2002, 03:19
Hehe, bark-bark-boxes, I was typing too fast. :D

Maciamo
Feb 1, 2005, 22:02
Just as a follow-up for this topic :

37 nonnative species set to be banned (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050201a3.htm)


Various Environment Ministry panels gave the green light Monday to listing 37 nonnative species that will fall under an import and breeding ban when a law on conserving native species takes effect in June
...
The list includes largemouth bass, snapping turtles, raccoons and black widow spiders.

But wildlife conservation groups, which have asked the government to list about 300 species, criticized the list, saying it favors industry and makes light of the fact that the law is supposed to prevent damage to indigenous species.

The law will ban the importing, trading, breeding and disposing of designated alien species unless approved by the government for research or other special purposes.

lexico
Feb 3, 2005, 17:07
I don't know what this has to do with whales.
Whales are not imported or smuggled pets is what I understand.

But as your title suggests, could there be a conspiracy to ban foreigners by starting with the extermination of nono-native (non-human) species?

It would seem ridiculous, but not impossible when I think about it.
The Ainus had eagerly abandoned their identity for fear of mistreatment.
Looking at the track racord there is reason for concern; to what degree I don't know.

If someone could do it legally they would. If illegally without being charged, they would still do it. Even if charged they still might do it. So the next question would be to assess the concern objectively and not as a paranoia.

And how does the restoration of the local ecosystem fit in this cycle of intrigue ???

DoctorP
Feb 3, 2005, 17:42
And how does the restoration of the local ecosystem fit in this cycle of intrigue ???


By removing all of the introduced species, they could (in theory) return the ecosystems back to their original state. In theory it makes sense what they are wanting to do, and on certain levels I can agree with the idea. But as with anything else, things could go wrong and backfire on their plan! It's best to move slowly when doing something like this.

lexico
Feb 3, 2005, 18:50
This is totally illogical, what I'm trying to say.
How about do the exact opposite?
Instead of controlling the regional ecosystems and try to restore it, why not maximize the species traffic across natural boundaries and let nature take its course?

Would that trigger some kind of disaster? Or would it foster diversity of species by redistributing it? And thus acieving a new equilibrium that is more stable compared to what we have now?

DoctorP
Feb 3, 2005, 19:02
This is totally illogical, what I'm trying to say.
How about do the exact opposite?
Instead of controlling the regional ecosystems and try to restore it, why not maximize the species traffic across natural boundaries and let nature take its course?

Would that trigger some kind of disaster? Or would it foster diversity of species by redistributing it? And thus acieving a new equilibrium that is more stable compared to what we have now?

The whole purpose for trying to put things back as they were is that the introduced species tend to take over and harm the ecosystem...not always, but many times. Look at "kudzu"...it is a vine that when introduced to certain areas it completely takes over and chokes out all existing plant life. Is that maximizing anything?

IMHO it is best for us not to play "god" by moving things around and saying wow this looks good here...only to find out it causes more harm than good!

lexico
Feb 3, 2005, 19:21
The whole purpose for trying to put things back as they were is that the introduced species tend to take over and harm the ecosystem...not always, but many times. Look at "kudzu"...it is a vine that when introduced to certain areas it completely takes over and chokes out all existing plant life. Is that maximizing anything?

IMHO it is best for us not to play "god" by moving things around and saying wow this looks good here...only to find out it causes more harm than good!I understand your logic, nevertheless, for argumentation's sake please let me add.
By applying human standards to nature, we are already playing god.
What is good or bad seems to be dfined by the values of the native culture.
Furthermore, the whole human history is based on modifying nature to its needs.
So I find it a circular syllogism to exalt nature, but then apply human values in 'protecting' nature.

Looking at it another way, the trafficking of species is happening anyway, regardless of efforts to regularize it. With so much people and goods going back and forth, it is hardly expected that it will slow down any time soon unless the oil wells dry up. What you are proposing is a real uphill struggle that is going against everything natural and artificial in reality. Species will move about with or without us.

DoctorP
Feb 3, 2005, 19:41
Species will move about with or without us.

This I agree with, but what was discussed in the articles in not the species that are moving on their own, but the ones being displaced by humans! Red eared sliders which are bought as pets, then released into the wild because the owner can't care for them. Mongoose being brought in to control snake/rat populations and then essentially taking over.

Plantlife or micro-organisms being displaced by hitching a ride on your shoe or pants leg is one thing, but what is being discussed here is completely different! Then to apply it to possibly removing foreigners is totally assinine...IMHO