101 replies to this topic

[Batspiderfish]

 

 

Do you keep ants?

 

I do keep ants. I like social parasites in particular. I love innocent questions like this.

 

 

So your ants could escape and could spread diseases wouldn't it be better for you to stop ant keeping if you are so concerned about the next ant apocalypse caused by not yet known diseases?

 

 

So like am I more concerned about my ants that are actively never escaping, or myriads of hobbyists releasing their ants intentionally? Pretend that wasn't a question, because this is getting boring.

 

you are all getting pretty ridiculous, I can't even say that pesticides are a larger problem than ant keepers for the environment. I mean seriously, do you disagree with that!?

 

I don't disagree that pesticides are the more significant problem, I just don't usually try to fix problems by making them worse.

Edited by Batspiderfish, September 24 2017 - 10:04 AM.

[Spamdy]

 

 

What I meant by that is that I've heard people say things like lifting too many rocks can harm the ecosystem very much in that area, say a large field for example. And yet everyday massive fields are completely smothered in chemicals meant to kill nearly all insect life, but I haven't heard anything about that. You'r kind of focusing on the 10 and no the 90. Just let people do what they want to do.

This is the most idiotic and shortsighted thing that I will read today. 

 

I hope. 

 

How so? I thought that bringing up the fact that people are way to concerned about the 10% and not as concerned as they need to be about the 90% was a very insightful thing. I really did not say anything that you wouldn't agree with(I assume you care about pesticides, and unless you read it wrong, you would realize I do to), except that you should leave people alone about how they like to catch ants, and how to dispose of them. No one has, and no one will ever cause anything as bad as what we witness everyday as far as pesticides, land clearings... 

 

I agree that pesticides are a big problem, but the problem is, people don't like ants and other insects in general. We can't stop that. People are selfish, we do things for our own good, pollution, land clearings are something we can solve as a few hundred to a thousand people in the US can solve. If 90% of the ants are killed from pesticides and us as antkeepers are disrupting the small 10% (In real life it would actually be somewhere between 1%-5%) then the ecosystem is getting hurt. Also lets try to solve this argument in a more mannerly way before we start applying dank memes as our argument please. 

Edited by Spamdy, September 24 2017 - 10:14 AM.

[gcsnelling]

What I meant by that is that I've heard people say things like lifting too many rocks can harm the ecosystem very much in that area, say a large field for example. And yet everyday massive fields are completely smothered in chemicals meant to kill nearly all insect life, but I haven't heard anything about that. You'r kind of focusing on the 10 and no the 90. Just let people do what they want to do.

Keep in mind that field being sprayed is already a massively disturbed habitat, pesticides can do little further damage to it. Yes they will run off and get in to undisturbed habitats which is a huge issue and potentially very damaging. That however does not release us of our responsibility to to the best we can to safeguard what we can. To think and act otherwise is very irresponsible.

[Barristan]

So like am I more concerned about my ants that are actively never escaping, or myriads of hobbyists releasing their ants intentionally? Pretend that wasn't a question, because this is getting boring.

Yes it is getting boring.

So you ignore the fact that there is a chance that your ants could escape or you accept the low risk and still keep ants. I accept the almost none existent probability of spreading diseases by releasing native ants and will still tell everybody that there isn't anything bad about it.

But hey it's your opinion don't be mad at others if they don't share your's. Trust me so many ants even exotic ones escape yearly from botanic gardens, zoos, gardens etc and are spread over state and country borders which makes the number of ants which escape or are released look quite tiny.

Edited by Barristan, September 24 2017 - 10:19 AM.

[FeedTheAnts]

 

What I meant by that is that I've heard people say things like lifting too many rocks can harm the ecosystem very much in that area, say a large field for example. And yet everyday massive fields are completely smothered in chemicals meant to kill nearly all insect life, but I haven't heard anything about that. You'r kind of focusing on the 10 and no the 90. Just let people do what they want to do.

Keep in mind that field being sprayed is already a massively disturbed habitat, pesticides can do little further damage to it. Yes they will run off and get in to undisturbed habitats which is a huge issue and potentially very damaging. That however does not release us of our responsibility to to the best we can to safeguard what we can. To think and act otherwise is very irresponsible.

 

Good insight. I've been talking with members on chat and have realized that maybe what you are saying is correct about ants being sprayed on farms. But I still think a lot of the people on this forum are wrong in saying there is something terrible that can happen by putting ants back where you got them, or lifting too many rocks. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, nothing horrible is going to happen, so I tried pointing this out by giving them an example of something that was way more important(humans use of pesticides), but I guess it really isn't. And I was not saying that we should overlook destructive hobbyist just because we overlook the use of pesticides. 

[Ants_Texas]

My stance on the situation:

 

If your area is infested with an invasive species, such as Solenopsis invicta: Do not go overboard with catching queens, as this just strengthens the invasive species by reducing its predators. (Which effectively kills other colonies, which limits alate production, which limits fertile queens, which limits new wild colonies)

 

If your area isn't infested with a super invasive species: You should only catch queens that you will keep colonies of, release after helping the queen found her colony, or sell.

 

Basically, just don't bite off more than you can chew.

Edited by Ants_Texas, September 24 2017 - 4:17 PM.

[FeedTheAnts]

My stance on the situation:

 

If you're area is infested with an invasive species, such as Solenopsis invicta: Do not go overboard with catching queens, as this just strengthens the invasive species by reducing its predators. (Which effectively kills other colonies, which limits alate production, which limits fertile queens, which limits new wild colonies)

 

If your area isn't infested with a super invasive species: You should only catch queens that you will keep colonies of, release after helping the queen found her colony, or sell.

 

Basically, just don't bite off more than you can chew.

I'm not too sure about that first part but maybe if someone else were to give their opinion on that. 

The second part I totally agree with, and I totally bit off more then I can chew at the beginning of this year and had to release two colonies, one of which was boosted with a lot of brood that I took from a different colony, so ya...

[Ants_Texas]

Also, I don't really see a problem with brood boosting in small amounts. If I were to ever brood boost from a colony, I'd actually leave some free food there for them such as some honey, or maybe a few spiders.

[ultraex2]

Perhaps I am mistaken but I believe that our very own gcsnelling posting in this thread telling you not to release ants is a Myrmecologist. I suspect batspiderfish may be as well though I don't know for sure. 

 

Speaking of self-serving justifications, thank you for demonstrating exactly my point by citing that antscanada advertising page as though it is in anyway authoritative. 

 

I'm pretty sure I trust the word of Antscanada more than yours, not sure why you think your opinion is worth more than his?  

 

At any rate, this whole debate ended up just boiling down to the following:

 

Person against releasing:  "You shouldn't because you can give wild ants diseases."

People for releasing:  "You don't have any evidence to support that."

Person against releasing:  "Well, it happens to animals.  Look at this study!"

Person for releasing:  "But that's not an insect.  That doesn't prove anything in this argument."

Person against releasing:  "Well you're just irresponsible and I can't even believe you'd take a risk like that."

 

Basically, we're just asking for proof - and then when no one comes up with any proof and we don't change our views you guys are just ridiculing us because "it should be common sense"... pretty ridiculous.  Just because you think something and are able to justify it with your own head canon doesn't mean you're right.

[Batspiderfish]

AntsCanada consistently provides inaccurate information, even with their more "well researched" episodes (looking at you, Pogonomyrmex). They are a Youtube channel dedicated to selling ant products, not in the least bit authoritative from a scientific perspective. We ought to be reaching out to Mikey, kind of like how Veerabhadran Ramanathan reached out to Pope Francis about global warming. People will listen to those that they like, not those who they only see to give unpopular advice.

 

So yeah, I too would love to see specific evidence from either side, but research has to come from somewhere; it doesn't appear out of thin air. It requires trained people and lots of resources to produce research. What biologists are doing in the meanwhile is using inductive logic to connect fragments of evidence and apply basic biological principles to help keep the environment more secure. Anybody who thinks that science is built from full understanding is fooling themselves. I'm sorry that this appears to you like some kind of power play from a bunch of strangers who say they're educated, but on a personal level we have literally nothing to gain from participating in this discussion other than improving the safety and stewardship of the hobby. But seeing as how the only nay-sayers can't express any proficiency in biology, they are really only left with their emotions. I don't know why anybody is treating insects like they aren't governed by the same principles as other animals.

 

I hear the same terrible arguments when people are saying that it's ok for them to break the law and try to import exotic species.

Edited by Batspiderfish, September 25 2017 - 11:08 AM.

[Serafine]

I'm pretty sure I trust the word of Antscanada more than yours, not sure why you think your opinion is worth more than his?

AntsCanada. The same AntsCanada that shat all over keepers of exotic ants while keeping a desert-dwelling bearded dragon (that is know to be prone to respiratory infections in high humidity) in the Philippines which are essentially a wet greenhouse. The same AntsCanada that told people to preserve their natural environment and keep native species yet allowed sales of highly invasive RED IMPORTED FIRE ANTS - one of the worst creeping ecological disasters on the entire planet - through their GAN marketplace. The same AntsCanada that is STILL EVEN TODAY allowing sales of highly invasive red imported fire ants in Mexico (just go to their GAN page and check). The same AntsCanada that after the whole fire ant thing was over stated "please keep us telling stuff like that it can only make AntsCanada and GAN better" yet without ANY comment or feedback bans people criticizing them from their forums (they have a history of doing that). The same AntsCanada that simply DUMPED three plastic boxes with asian marauder ants into a terrarium (instead of just offering them one single vinyl tubing leading into the terrarium so they can explore the new setup at their own pace) destroying the chambers and the entire nest climate of a species that is known to be very sensitive and hard to raise and then wonders that they die off.

No, I'm not convinced they know what they're doing.

Edited by Serafine, September 25 2017 - 12:19 PM.

[Barristan]

Well if you can't provide evidence how do you know that it is irresponsible? Faith? So that's how science works nowadays. I thought if someone makes a claim he has to prove it. But it seems that doesn't apply for environmentalists who want to push their agenda.

I don't know for US law but in German law vertebrates benefit from a higher level of protection than invertebrates so to respond to your quote:
 

I don't know why anybody is treating insects like they aren't governed by the same principles as other animals.

Because they aren't!

If you get annoyed by a bird in Germany and you kill it you have to pay at least a fee if someone files a complaint against you. If you kill a fly nothing will happen even if someone files a complaint against you since you did not violate any law.

Edited by Barristan, September 25 2017 - 11:46 AM.

[Batspiderfish]

"Governed" in English doesn't just refer to human governments. I meant that the evolutionary principles acting upon insects are the same principles acting upon vertebrates. It is perfectly valid to apply disease models for vertebrates onto insects, because they have to deal with most of the same things that we do, and they do so in a similar way. Humans protect vertebrates over insects because humans are biased towards animals that they can both see and which are easily relatable. It's not that hard to figure out.

 

Barristan, what evidence exists was provided from animals for which such research has been conducted. I think you are forgetting who is depending on faith that their unnecessary actions will never have negative consequences.

 

I guess this is going to drag on.

Edited by Batspiderfish, September 25 2017 - 12:09 PM.

[Serafine]

Except that ants (and even more so flies and mosquitoes which often get eaten by ants when they die) have been going in and out of human housings for millennia, other than birds or fish which usually don't interact with the insides of houses at all.

If ecological protection was such a huge issue we should immediately kill and outlaw all house cats as they are not only one of the major gateways for many mammal diseases but also a living ecological disaster of it's own - house cats are within the top 100 worst invasive species on the planet and held responsible for 14% of all modern bird, mammal and reptile extinctions. They are far worse than the average non-invasive ant species.

Edited by Serafine, September 25 2017 - 12:34 PM.

[Reacker]

 

Perhaps I am mistaken but I believe that our very own gcsnelling posting in this thread telling you not to release ants is a Myrmecologist. I suspect batspiderfish may be as well though I don't know for sure. 

 

Speaking of self-serving justifications, thank you for demonstrating exactly my point by citing that antscanada advertising page as though it is in anyway authoritative. 

 

I'm pretty sure I trust the word of Antscanada more than yours, not sure why you think your opinion is worth more than his?  

 

At any rate, this whole debate ended up just boiling down to the following:

 

Person against releasing:  "You shouldn't because you can give wild ants diseases."

People for releasing:  "You don't have any evidence to support that."

Person against releasing:  "Well, it happens to animals.  Look at this study!"

Person for releasing:  "But that's not an insect.  That doesn't prove anything in this argument."

Person against releasing:  "Well you're just irresponsible and I can't even believe you'd take a risk like that."

 

Basically, we're just asking for proof - and then when no one comes up with any proof and we don't change our views you guys are just ridiculing us because "it should be common sense"... pretty ridiculous.  Just because you think something and are able to justify it with your own head canon doesn't mean you're right.

 

 

If you're not willing to understand that we can look at examples with other types of animals and desire to prevent the same thing happening with ants by applying sensible precautions then there's no point in trying to convince you. 

 

I look forward to the day when some antkeeper somewhere does something stupid enough to attract enough legal attention to cause regulations to be put into place that significantly restrict the freedom of people to keep ants because at least then there will be something to check the torrent of careless stupidity that the hobby produces. 

Edited by Reacker, September 25 2017 - 12:52 PM.

[FeedTheAnts]

Keep this up and "Over Hunting" is going to surpass Wakka Wakka!

[FeedTheAnts]

 

 

 

I look forward to the day when some antkeeper somewhere does something stupid enough to attract enough legal attention to cause regulations to be put into place that significantly restrict the freedom of people to keep ants because at least then there will be something to check the torrent of careless stupidity that the hobby produces. 

 

According to gscelling it already has enough legal attention that it is illegal to release ants... I still haven't heard any reason for why that statement is true btw... correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited by TennesseeAnts, September 25 2017 - 1:00 PM.

[Serafine]

I look forward to the day when some antkeeper somewhere does something stupid enough to attract enough legal attention to cause regulations to be put into place that significantly restrict the freedom of people to keep ants because at least then there will be something to check the torrent of careless stupidity that the hobby produces.

The current US government doesn't care for any immigrants with more than two legs, they are far too busy allowing coal corporations to poison drinking water, building oil pipelines through nature reserves and denying climate changes.

[Reacker]

Yup, our government does a lot of crap things on an ongoing basis. It also does a lot of good things on an ongoing basis. Neither of which detract from the other. Adding much closer attention to what irresponsible ant keepers are doing would be an addition to the list of good things. 

Edited by Reacker, September 25 2017 - 1:11 PM.

[ultraex2]

AntsCanada consistently provides inaccurate information, even with their more "well researched" episodes (looking at you, Pogonomyrmex). They are a Youtube channel dedicated to selling ant products, not in the least bit authoritative from a scientific perspective. We ought to be reaching out to Mikey, kind of like how Veerabhadran Ramanathan reached out to Pope Francis about global warming. People will listen to those that they like, not those who they only see to give unpopular advice.

 

So yeah, I too would love to see specific evidence from either side, but research has to come from somewhere; it doesn't appear out of thin air. It requires trained people and lots of resources to produce research. What biologists are doing in the meanwhile is using inductive logic to connect fragments of evidence and apply basic biological principles to help keep the environment more secure. Anybody who thinks that science is built from full understanding is fooling themselves. I'm sorry that this appears to you like some kind of power play from a bunch of strangers who say they're educated, but on a personal level we have literally nothing to gain from participating in this discussion other than improving the safety and stewardship of the hobby. But seeing as how the only nay-sayers can't express any proficiency in biology, they are really only left with their emotions. I don't know why anybody is treating insects like they aren't governed by the same principles as other animals.

 

I hear the same terrible arguments when people are saying that it's ok for them to break the law and try to import exotic species.

 

Asking for proof is not a terrible argument by any means - I have nothing against people that are well versed in biology saying what they think, or anybody for that matter, but if some is to say something is a fact I'll question it.

 

"What biologists are doing in the meanwhile is using inductive logic to connect fragments of evidence and apply basic biological principles to help keep the environment more secure. Anybody who thinks that science is built from full understanding is fooling themselves."  

 

That's called a theory and it's being used as a fact - and when people ask for proof/question this theory?  Apparently we're "emotional naysayers that have no proficiency in biology".  The irony is that we are only asking for any kind of proof/hard evidence and as I stated, would be willing to change my opinion if proved otherwise.

 

If anything, you are being emotional by becoming defensive and using ad hominems against people for releasing ants back into the wild rather than accepting that there isn't any evidence and leaving it at that.