Re: [RML] Re: Hybrid ethics-

Bjorn Straube (straube at digital.net)
Tue, 03 Feb 1998 23:48:19 -0500

Hi Andrew,
I took A look at what I wrote and you are right, well sort of ;)
While each introduction has a chance at sucess, the chance is
cumulative. Let me explain what I mean. If a single pair is let loose,
one orboth could be eaten, fall ill, or a miriad of other "things" could
happen to them. Now if a hundred pairs were released what are the
chances of survival? I think that with each pair the chances go up over
all. It's like the lottery, buy one ticket, your chances are what they
are (not real great). But, if you buy many tickets, the chances of any
one of those tickets wining have not changed, but the chances of owning
the wining ticket is much higher.

Bjorn

andrew.boyd at dfat.gov.au wrote:
>
>
> Hi Bjorn, nope, sorry man, your maths are faulty there... ;)
>
> Rework your equation in a single variable, reduce it to a straight linear
> equation :)
>
> The chances are the same with each introduction after the first only if the
> first actually takes... after that it doesn't really matter anymore, the damage
> is done. And if the introduced fish hybridise with the locals then you will
> never get rid of the genetic damage.
>
> Regards, Andrew
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: [RML] Re: Hybrid ethics-
> Author: MIME:straube at digital.net at INTERNET-MAIL
> Date: 2/3/98 5:24 PM
>
> I'm by no means an expert on any of this, but it seems to me that
> establishment of exotics is at least partly based on exsposure. That is,
> if a single idiot dumps a tankful of spiecies X into a stream, the
> chances off the fish surviving is going to be Y. But if let's say ten
> idiots do the same then the chances are ten fold (10Y). So having said
> that, the more the idiots that have acess(sp?), the greater the exposure
> rate, and the grater the survival. Now I'm sure it's not quite that cut
> and dry and I'm not advocating banning or importation one way or another
> (just havn't made up my mind yet).
>
> Now that I have stuck my foot in it, I'm not sure I want to take a look
> at the mess ;)
>
> Bjorn
>
> >From Florida where natives are outnumbered at least 2 to 1, and I'm not
> talking about the animals ;)
>
>
>
> andrew.boyd at dfat.gov.au wrote:
> >
> >
> > So we've started into this thread again? ;)
> >
> > OK, Peter, I'll bite.... I've stayed out of this one in the past, so this is
> > more of a Dot Dixer... It is not my view but it is that of many
> rainbowkeepers.
>
> >
> > If imported rainbows were going to escape our keeping systems and establish in
> > the wild wouldn't they have already done so? :)
> >
> > This arguement could be extended to Piranhas, Channas, and even Komodo
> Dragons I
> > guess ;)
> >
> > Regards, Andrew
> >
> > ______________________________ Reply Separator
> ________________________________ _
> > Subject: Re: [RML] Re: Hybrid ethics-
> > Author: MIME:peter.unmack at ASU.Edu at INTERNET-MAIL
> > Date: 2/3/98 9:13 AM
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Bruce Hansen wrote:
> >
> > > I have been trying to find any hard evidence that would support the
> > > continuation of the ban on PNG Rainbowfish and nobody seems to be able to
> > > offer any.
> >
> > Where's your evidence that disproves what the experts say? (Not that they
> > have much other than being cautious.) Where's the evidence that shows that
> > rainbows should be imported and that they don't pose any threat? :-)
> >
> > Tootles
> >
> > Peter Unmack
> >
> >
> >
>
>