Man made obstacles on the course.

[BirdieMachine]

I did read some more on it and people are mixed on it. I mean if you are in an area with very little trees what the heck is wrong with these? Now environmentalists are against trees. I just don't get it. How exactly is this tree harming nature? It is nature. It's removing CO2 which they believe is the devil itself. I can't understand their thinking, it baffles me.

 

[joecoin]

I did read some more on it and people are mixed on it. I mean if you are in an area with very little trees what the heck is wrong with these? Now environmentalists are against trees. I just don't get it. How exactly is this tree harming nature? It is nature. It's removing CO2 which they believe is the devil itself. I can't understand their thinking, it baffles me.

My unsolicited advice is; don't try to understand, just nod your head and get away.

 

[BirdieMachine]

My unsolicited advice is; don't try to understand, just nod your head and get away.

I read that article bashing the tree and she said it upsets the ecosystem. Yeah I don't get it. :wall:

 

[DavidSauls]

It's a fine tree in some places....an invasive one in some places....and won't grow at all in some, so isn't an automatic answer. Doesn't grow 12' a year, but does grow remarkably fast.

 

[ToddL]

I did read some more on it and people are mixed on it. I mean if you are in an area with very little trees what the heck is wrong with these? Now environmentalists are against trees. I just don't get it. How exactly is this tree harming nature? It is nature. It's removing CO2 which they believe is the devil itself. I can't understand their thinking, it baffles me.

What's not to get? Invasive species are generally a bad thing. They can kill native habitats, decrease biodiversity, and drive native species toward extinction.

Kudzu in the American Southeast
Pythons in Florida
Asian Carp in the American Midwest

If you want to plant trees, plant trees that are native to the area.

 

[BirdieMachine]

What's not to get? Invasive species are generally a bad thing. They can kill native habitats, decrease biodiversity, and drive native species toward extinction.

Kudzu in the American Southeast
Pythons in Florida
Asian Carp in the American Midwest

If you want to plant trees, plant trees that are native to the area.

I think it's a bunch of hogwash selecting one kind of plant or animal over another. In nature the strong survive for a reason, it's natural selection. Should we be deciding which plants or animals survive? In China I imagine this tree has been around for millions of years, Is China a terrible Country because of it?

I like how other invasive trees are accepted and others not as much. Poplar trees for instance grow very fast and spread quickly.

If that lady in the article about spending 138 billion trying to kill trees is right I think that is idiotic. The tree is not killing animals or humans, thats stupid.

What is so great about alligators anyways? They kill humans and other animals. Really what good are they? For Gator shoes and boots? To eat?

I know when I lived in Arizona it was illegal to kill rattlesnakes. What the flying **** is a rattlesnake good for? They also injure and kill humans and other animals? Their are hundreds of snakes that are not dangerous to humans, why protect the one dangerous to us? So we can die?

 

[DikkaD]

In Houston our pine trees got struck with a disease and killed off 70-80% of the trees. Some believe it was because the pines were not indiginous to the area. I am not against planting trees but I would definatally choose to plant trees native to the area.

This thread was meant to discuss MAN MADE objects, not what kind of trees to plant. They are made by Mother nature

 

[ToddL]

I think it's a bunch of hogwash selecting one kind of plant or animal over another. In nature the strong survive for a reason, it's natural selection. Should we be deciding which plants or animals survive? In China I imagine this tree has been around for millions of years, Is China a terrible Country because of it?

In nature we don't see plants and animals moving from one side of the world to the other. Natural selection leads to balanced ecosystems over time. This tree is fine in China because it has evolved alongside the rest of the environment over thousands and millions of years into a stable ecosystem. The tree grows quickly over there, but its evolution was matched by the rest of the ecosystem, so the rest of the trees and plants have developed some sort of defense against it (whether it be growing quickly themselves or something else). Stick that tree in the middle of America where nothing in the environment has ever built up a defense against it, and it runs rampant and kills everything in its path.

 

[BirdieMachine]

To be brutally honest I think man made objects are a bit mini golf cheesy. I definitely prefer a natural layout. It's a reason I'm against mandos unless safety is the main reason. If you have to make a mando to make the hole playable or challenging it's a terrible design.

 

[BirdieMachine]

In nature we don't see plants and animals moving from one side of the world to the other. Natural selection leads to balanced ecosystems over time. This tree is fine in China because it has evolved alongside the rest of the environment over thousands and millions of years into a stable ecosystem. The tree grows quickly over there, but its evolution was matched by the rest of the ecosystem, so the rest of the trees and plants have developed some sort of defense against it (whether it be growing quickly themselves or something else). Stick that tree in the middle of America where nothing in the environment has ever built up a defense against it, and it runs rampant and kills everything in its path.

Do you have proof, I've yet to see where the tree has taken over everything else. Most of the pro people says they haven't even seen a spread at all from the ones they planted. Give me a picture of where it has destroyed everything in it's path.

 

[jeverett]

I think it's a bunch of hogwash selecting one kind of plant or animal over another. In nature the strong survive for a reason, it's natural selection. Should we be deciding which plants or animals survive? In China I imagine this tree has been around for millions of years, Is China a terrible Country because of it?

I like how other invasive trees are accepted and others not as much. Poplar trees for instance grow very fast and spread quickly.

If that lady in the article about spending 138 billion trying to kill trees is right I think that is idiotic. The tree is not killing animals or humans, thats stupid.

What is so great about alligators anyways? They kill humans and other animals. Really what good are they? For Gator shoes and boots? To eat?

I know when I lived in Arizona it was illegal to kill rattlesnakes. What the flying **** is a rattlesnake good for? They also injure and kill humans and other animals? Their are hundreds of snakes that are not dangerous to humans, why protect the one dangerous to us? So we can die?

Hi BirdieMachine,

Umm.. I think you may have totally missed the concept of 'invasive' species. All species (over generations) adapt (to within the limits of their genetic diversity) to their (local) environment, and compete with other species for resources. In general, this kind of competition produces a relative balance.. i.e. there are many local species, each of which are kept in check by other local species (i.e. no one species takes over). People often think about this kind of competition in terms of predator/prey relationships, but it's also important to note that many plant species actually engage in biological 'warfare' with each other, which further keeps their populations in check.

This particular tree is not a problem in China (where it originated).. it's not 'invasive' there. The 'invasive' problem happens when (typically through human interaction/interference) we take a species that was being adequately kept in check in its local environment, and place it in a totally new environment. Suddenly, the species finds no opposition to its methods of acquiring resources, and none of its predators around either. So it is able to reproduce unchecked, rapidly taking resources from other local species. The end result: a mono-culture.

Also, rattlesnakes are 'good' for keeping rodent populations in check, which eat crops and potentially even spread diseases.

Please, do a bit more reading on the function of biodiversity. You may be surprised to learn that there really is no such thing as a species that does 'no good'. It's more a question of *where* it does good, and that 'good' might not be here.

 

[BirdieMachine]

Hi BirdieMachine,

Umm.. I think you may have totally missed the concept of 'invasive' species. All species (over generations) adapt (to within the limits of their genetic diversity) to their (local) environment, and compete with other species for resources. In general, this kind of competition produces a relative balance.. i.e. there are many local species, each of which are kept in check by other local species (i.e. no one species takes over). People often think about this kind of competition in terms of predator/prey relationships, but it's also important to note that many plant species actually engage in biological 'warfare' with each other, which further keeps their populations in check.

This particular tree is not a problem in China (where it originated).. it's not 'invasive' there. The 'invasive' problem happens when (typically through human interaction/interference) we take a species that was being adequately kept in check in its local environment, and place it in a totally new environment. Suddenly, the species finds no opposition to its methods of acquiring resources, and none of its predators around either. So it is able to reproduce unchecked, rapidly taking resources from other local species. The end result: a mono-culture.

Also, rattlesnakes are 'good' for keeping rodent populations in check, which eat crops and potentially even spread diseases.

Please, do a bit more reading on the function of biodiversity. You may be surprised to learn that there really is no such thing as a species that does 'no good'. It's more a question of *where* it does good, and that 'good' might not be here.

So no other snakes eat rodents to take over the lost rattlesnake population? I find that hard to believe. A bunch of fear mongering.

 

[goosefraba1]

Hi BirdieMachine,

Umm.. I think you may have totally missed the concept of 'invasive' species. All species (over generations) adapt (to within the limits of their genetic diversity) to their (local) environment, and compete with other species for resources. In general, this kind of competition produces a relative balance.. i.e. there are many local species, each of which are kept in check by other local species (i.e. no one species takes over). People often think about this kind of competition in terms of predator/prey relationships, but it's also important to note that many plant species actually engage in biological 'warfare' with each other, which further keeps their populations in check.

This particular tree is not a problem in China (where it originated).. it's not 'invasive' there. The 'invasive' problem happens when (typically through human interaction/interference) we take a species that was being adequately kept in check in its local environment, and place it in a totally new environment. Suddenly, the species finds no opposition to its methods of acquiring resources, and none of its predators around either. So it is able to reproduce unchecked, rapidly taking resources from other local species. The end result: a mono-culture.

Also, rattlesnakes are 'good' for keeping rodent populations in check, which eat crops and potentially even spread diseases.

Please, do a bit more reading on the function of biodiversity. You may be surprised to learn that there really is no such thing as a species that does 'no good'. It's more a question of *where* it does good, and that 'good' might not be here.

+1... good post.

 

[BirdieMachine]

Alligators are good cause they keep the human population in check.

 

[jeverett]

Alligators are good cause they keep the human population in check.

Also, for the record alligators kill very few humans. There are far more deaths in the US per year from Deer, for example. Here's a handy illustration:

Edit: ack giant image ftl.

 

[BirdieMachine]

Hmm, ok thats some interesting stats if correct. I am pro hunting deer for sure whether for sport or just food. I am a bit surprised that many people die from falling off horses, I don't ride horses though and have no interest. Bees seem reasonable with allergic people. For sure some dogs can be killers, pit bulls is one. No use to have certain killer dogs. Spiders and snakes can cause permanent damage more commonly. Nerve damage, losing a finger, etc. Same with Gators, loss of limbs is probably more common. I thought Bears would be higher, I seem to hear about one ever couple months.

 

[Curtis_Valk]

 

[BirdieMachine]

You are missing Moose on the list. They for sure kill many people up in Alaska through attacks or car accidents. Ever watch the show Alaska Sate Troopers? Moose are their biggest problems.

 

[Toady84]

Hi BirdieMachine,

Umm.. I think you may have totally missed the concept of 'invasive' species. All species (over generations) adapt (to within the limits of their genetic diversity) to their (local) environment, and compete with other species for resources. In general, this kind of competition produces a relative balance.. i.e. there are many local species, each of which are kept in check by other local species (i.e. no one species takes over). People often think about this kind of competition in terms of predator/prey relationships, but it's also important to note that many plant species actually engage in biological 'warfare' with each other, which further keeps their populations in check.

This particular tree is not a problem in China (where it originated).. it's not 'invasive' there. The 'invasive' problem happens when (typically through human interaction/interference) we take a species that was being adequately kept in check in its local environment, and place it in a totally new environment. Suddenly, the species finds no opposition to its methods of acquiring resources, and none of its predators around either. So it is able to reproduce unchecked, rapidly taking resources from other local species. The end result: a mono-culture.

Also, rattlesnakes are 'good' for keeping rodent populations in check, which eat crops and potentially even spread diseases.

Please, do a bit more reading on the function of biodiversity. You may be surprised to learn that there really is no such thing as a species that does 'no good'. It's more a question of *where* it does good, and that 'good' might not be here.

Well Said!

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Humans: good for keeping pretty much every other population down.

Humans are the deadliest animal there is, period.
You're more likely to get killed in a crash with another car on your way to the course, or killed by someone else once you get there, than having any other animal take you out somehow.