Batspiderfish wrote:All you're implying is that human involvement can accelerate the invasion process. However, we know that Solenopsis invicta never needed our help to expand its range. They didn't have a problem before we started using mass-treatment pesticides in the 60's, and they don't have a problem after we stopped using them in the 80's. Mass pesticides were completely ineffective on S. invicta's ecological strategy, but they were never the cause of the problem.
Ok, neat, but you should note one thing. During the period of 1960-1980 (which on the first map we will call green to yellow) the range expanded almost as much in a 20 year period (with human involvement) as it did in a 40 year period (1920-1960 when it was here before pesticide raids). So with human involvement it expands its range twice as fast as with no human involvement (other than bringing them here through travel to get them out of south america and up into the US). So you kind of just proved his point. And also, you missed touching on the mixture of climates WITHIN a state. Because in texas it would be perfectly legal to go out to a desert, snatch some ants, and bring them back to your house in the swamp, and who KNOWS what kind of effect an escape could have on that ecosystem. I'm not trying to say in any way that the laws shouldn't be there, or that I support breaking them, but what I am saying is there is major holes in them, because there is no legal distinction between transporting ants from deserts to swamps, (TX scenario), and transporting from swamp to identical swamp (IE from TX to Louisiana) . One could cause MAJOR ecological harm but is legal, whereas the other would probably do nothing, but is illegal.