Threads like this are quite amusing to me. It seems that whenever anything involves the government, the worst intentions and ineptitude are automatically assumed, despite a lack of evidence. This story involves scientists, government intervention, AND animals. Yay! It's a veritable "hat trick" of outragey topics for pseudo-experts to pontificate on!
Everybody knows that scientists are super smart, except when they say educated things based on research and evidence that conflict with our biases, or when they're working for the government. Then they're just incompetent, stupid, and evil.
And who doesn't love animals? AmIright? The government, of course! Because, you know, they're all evil and stupid. It's all so juicy and conspiracyish!
And, wouldn't ya know it, now everyone is suddenly an expert in ecology, biology, pharmacology, and animal behavior and making all kinds of dubiously authoritative statements on subjects with which they likely have little to no expert knowledge.
We have people who are not herpetologists making authoritatively asserted, factual-sounding statements about snake behavior, with no citations, evidence, or disclosed educational background to back them up. We have people trying to tell a veterinarian what is and is not toxic to dogs. We have non-ecologists disparaging scientific efforts to restore a sense of ecological balance to an area, under the assumption (it seems) that the scientists have no idea of what ecological homeostasis is or have given no thought to it whatsoever.
If only the scientists and organizations involved had consulted an internet message board before going off half-cocked on this Keystone Cops-esque misadventure that's sure to end in environmental armageddon.
It takes a special kind of arrogance and
illusory superiority for people with little-to-no relevant background in the subject to think not only that they know more about the situation and subject than the scientists involved but also that these scientists haven't considered all of the variables proposed here and very likely many more, haven't ruled out the inapplicable ones, haven't gathered empirical data, and are thoughtlessly racing into this project all willy nilly, with no consideration for the consequences.
Just like there are "Monday morning quarterbacks," I guess there also exist "Monday morning scientists."
This project is an attempt to
restore an ecological balance. It cannot create imbalance because the imbalance already exists. Yes, it may have unforeseen consequences, but such is life. Science isn't perfect. Nothing is. But at least they're making a seemingly well-thought-out attempt at doing something. Otherwise, I'm sure we'd all be sitting around criticizing the ecological/biological/etc. consequences of them
not intervening.