Only In California Do They Want To Ban Butterflies & E-Cigarettes

http://www.naba.org/action.html

Releases of commercially-raised butterflies may spread diseases and epidemics to native butterfly populations. This issue is critical. All known biological organisms are affected by diseases and parasites. The spread of diseases from one area to another has decimated populations. For example, American chestnuts almost became extinct due tothe introduction of a fungus from Europe. The transmission of measles from European populations of humans to New World populations of humans killed more Native Americans than died in any wars. The lesson here is that not all populations of the same or related species have been exposed to all diseases that may affect that species. Our knowledge of butterfly diseases is rudimentary, but we do know that there are many species of viruses, including many baculoviruses and nuclear polyhedral viruses, many bacteria, and many fungi that cause diseases of butterflies. Such diseases have been found to be prevalent in shipments of commercially-raised butterflies.

Shipping butterflies from California to New York, or from Florida to New York or California and then releasing the butterflies into the environment would allow a California disease to spread to wild butterfly populations in New York, or a Florida disease to spread to California. The fact that Red Admirals can be found in Florida and in California does not preclude the likelihood that some diseases or parasites of Red Admirals and other butterflies are currently limited in their range to, for example, Florida, or to California.

In the late 1940's, House Finches, a bird that until then had been found only in the western United States, were released onto Long Island, New York. These few birds have now spread throughout the entire eastern United States, demonstrating that although a particular species may currently be found in only one section of the United States, there is no guarantee that it will not thrive in a different region if introduced into that region. If this is true of a bird, it can be just as true of a disease-causing organism.

The practice of shipping live butterflies around the country and releasing them into the environment carries with it the possibilty of unleashing invasive diseases.

Large-scale commercial operations foster the spread of disease and the generation of new diseases that can devastate butterflies. It is well known that agriculture and animal husbandry, by increasing densities of an organism, create conditions that are extremely favorable for the spread of disease-causing agents of that organism. In addition, these condition encourage the creation of new disease-causing organisms.

The fitness of local butterfly populations may be decreased by interbreeding with released individuals. A recent report in Nature (Moore, P.D. 2000. "Conservation biology: Seeds of doubt." Nature 407: 683-685.) highlights the unexpected finding that, released into the environment, individuals that originate non-locally, will breed with local individuals and decrease the fitness of the local population, by introducing genes that are not optimal for the local environmental conditions.
 
Storm do you really think being so fucking dishonest like that gets you anything but people thinking what a dishonest piece of shit you are?

:rofl2:

Are you saying I lied about Butterflies being important in the pollination of plants?
 
http://www.naba.org/action.html

Releases of commercially-raised butterflies may spread diseases and epidemics to native butterfly populations. This issue is critical. All known biological organisms are affected by diseases and parasites. The spread of diseases from one area to another has decimated populations. For example, American chestnuts almost became extinct due tothe introduction of a fungus from Europe. The transmission of measles from European populations of humans to New World populations of humans killed more Native Americans than died in any wars. The lesson here is that not all populations of the same or related species have been exposed to all diseases that may affect that species. Our knowledge of butterfly diseases is rudimentary, but we do know that there are many species of viruses, including many baculoviruses and nuclear polyhedral viruses, many bacteria, and many fungi that cause diseases of butterflies. Such diseases have been found to be prevalent in shipments of commercially-raised butterflies.

Shipping butterflies from California to New York, or from Florida to New York or California and then releasing the butterflies into the environment would allow a California disease to spread to wild butterfly populations in New York, or a Florida disease to spread to California. The fact that Red Admirals can be found in Florida and in California does not preclude the likelihood that some diseases or parasites of Red Admirals and other butterflies are currently limited in their range to, for example, Florida, or to California.

In the late 1940's, House Finches, a bird that until then had been found only in the western United States, were released onto Long Island, New York. These few birds have now spread throughout the entire eastern United States, demonstrating that although a particular species may currently be found in only one section of the United States, there is no guarantee that it will not thrive in a different region if introduced into that region. If this is true of a bird, it can be just as true of a disease-causing organism.

The practice of shipping live butterflies around the country and releasing them into the environment carries with it the possibilty of unleashing invasive diseases.

Large-scale commercial operations foster the spread of disease and the generation of new diseases that can devastate butterflies. It is well known that agriculture and animal husbandry, by increasing densities of an organism, create conditions that are extremely favorable for the spread of disease-causing agents of that organism. In addition, these condition encourage the creation of new disease-causing organisms.

The fitness of local butterfly populations may be decreased by interbreeding with released individuals. A recent report in Nature (Moore, P.D. 2000. "Conservation biology: Seeds of doubt." Nature 407: 683-685.) highlights the unexpected finding that, released into the environment, individuals that originate non-locally, will breed with local individuals and decrease the fitness of the local population, by introducing genes that are not optimal for the local environmental conditions.

Portions of that come from the same article I posted which addresses all of these issues.. (almost word for word, a bit of plagiarism perhaps?). It says "may" and specifically addresses that there is no significant study to prove this and calls for one. The reality is the science doesn't back you up, because nobody has bothered to study these supposed effects. Making laws on unsupported suppositions is not "science" even if you say it often, and making laws because it feels good and sorta sounds like science if you squint real hard is still making laws based on emotive unsupported supposition.

Count how often they use words like "may cause" and actually states that "our" knowledge in some of the areas is rudimentary at best. That isn't science, it is guesswork and supposition.
 
they are profit first dude.

Mine are not.

Yours has a stake of money in it.

Mine does not.


Do you trust the used care salesman or the the mechanic who tells you things are not all OK like the car sales man says?
 
they are profit first dude.

Mine are not.

Yours has a stake of money in it.

Mine does not.


Do you trust the used care salesman or the the mechanic who tells you things are not all OK like the car sales man says?

No, they aren't. I even pointed that out in the first post with the link. You didn't bother reading and now embarrass yourself with "our knowledge on this is rudimentary" means "science".

That you defend this based on "science" shows you don't know or try to understand what the word means.

You should read the article I linked to. It doesn't avoid the uncomfortable pieces by directly speaking to your concerns, nor does it assume that there is supporting "science" where there is none.
 
:rofl2:

I like the line why they want to ban e-cigs, "This is a gateway drug." Next thing you know, kids will be shooting up Heroin.
 

I notice how you skipped over the "non-profit" portion. The article was not written by a member though. I've seen it on several sites. You obviously didn't read the article or you'd have far less objection, it again addresses each of the points of the partially plagiarized article you came up with.

The one main thing you need to know is that even your article states that our knowledge in that arena is rudimentary at best because there have been no studies, that isn't scientific, it is the opposite.
 
Back
Top