Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tack]

Darn, ninja'd.

1. Because scientists said so.
2. Logically, they're cold blooded. By the time they died they'd be too dumb and sleepy to realize it was happening.

[Orange Wizard]

It's also a lot less disgusting than whacking them with a shovel.

[Xantalos]

Also more humane than exploding them with a bicycle pump.

[Tack]

Or playing golf with them

[Sirus]

If you're willing to risk horrible death by carbon monoxide poisoning, you could always shut the toads into a box or bucket (something with high walls they can't easily escape from), cover the top with a wet towel, and run a hose from a running car's exhaust pipe into the container. I heard that sometimes folks kill stray unwanted animals that way.

[IcyTea31]

You could go the natural way and try introducing some poison-resistant snakes. Then your pool plot of land would be full of bigger, even-harder-to-kill critters. Toad problem solved!

What's that? Snake problem? You could go the natural way and try introducing some snake-eating vultures. Then your pool plot of land general vicinity would be full of bigger, even-harder-to-kill critters. Snake problem solved!

Vulture problem? You could go the natural way and try introducing some vulture-scaring wasps. Then your pool plot of land general vicinity everything would be full of smaller, even nastier critters. Vulture problem solved!

Wasp problem? You could go the natural way and try introducing some wasp-eating, poisonous toads. Then your pool plot of land general vicinity everything pool would be full of bigger, even-harder-to-kill critters. Wasp problem solved!

[Bohandas]

You could go the natural way and try introducing some poison-resistant snakes. Then your pool plot of land would be full of bigger, even-harder-to-kill critters. Toad problem solved!

What's that? Snake problem? You could go the natural way and try introducing some snake-eating vultures. Then your pool plot of land general vicinity would be full of bigger, even-harder-to-kill critters. Snake problem solved!

Vulture problem? You could go the natural way and try introducing some vulture-scaring wasps. Then your pool plot of land general vicinity everything would be full of smaller, even nastier critters. Vulture problem solved!

Wasp problem? You could go the natural way and try introducing some wasp-eating, poisonous toads. Then your pool plot of land general vicinity everything pool would be full of bigger, even-harder-to-kill critters. Wasp problem solved!

Sarcastic or not that's got the shape of a viable long-term solution

More viable than people constantly intervening at any rate

[Tack]

Yeah, I've seen that episode of the Simpsons.

That being said none of these "suggestions" are that helpful, much as you guys are awesome.
The damage is done, I'm just having trouble dealing with my conscience about it.
Or, more specifically, the lack of conscience from my housemate.

[Bohandas]

If you're willing to risk horrible death by carbon monoxide poisoning, you could always shut the toads into a box or bucket (something with high walls they can't easily escape from), cover the top with a wet towel, and run a hose from a running car's exhaust pipe into the container. I heard that sometimes folks kill stray unwanted animals that way.

How can it be both a horrible way to die and a humane way to kill somehing.

I think all of you are just squeamish and it has nothing whatsoever to do with being humane.

It's the same reason why I don't swat flies unless I absolutely have to; it's got nothing to do with being nice to the flies and everything to do with not getting fly guts on my hands and on my property.

EDIT:
When you get the chance, I want you all to take a look at the classic Star Trek episode A Taste of Armageddon

[Bohandas]

I still don't see how an animal that isn't in your house or damaging it's exterior is a concern though.

EDIT:
Seriously. Wu wei. The bigger problem is the compulsion to intervene. Full eradication of most introduced pests is a pipe dream, so all partial eradication does is increase the time it takes nature to reach a new equilibrium.

[Orange Wizard]

You don't seem to understand just how disgusting and destructive cane toads are.

[Bohandas]

You don't seem to understand just how disgusting and destructive cane toads are.

It may be a perspective issue. I live in a well constructed house with a good internet connection and cable tv, so nothing's coming in and I'm not going out. I suppose if you had a lack of modern amenities you might have business outside, but we're clearly all communicating over the internet.

[IcyTea31]

I still don't see how an animal that isn't in your house or damaging it's exterior is a concern though.

Take another animal that eats the same things and plus pests that eat crops. The foreign species eats the food off the second one's plate, reducing their amount in nature. The pest thrives without its predator, and eats all the crops it can. And then a grocer in a faraway town suddenly raises the prices of grain products as there is less supply.

The thing about ecology (the science, not the political cause) is that everything affects everything. A single introduced species can be a huge spanner in the works, affecting humans just as well as the ecosystem.

[Orange Wizard]

Incidentally, most people do have to go outside. Work, shopping, gardening - these are all things that need to be done. Some people also have children, and pets, both of which often like to go outside. Cane toads are dangerous to children and pets, and wreak havoc on the local ecosystem. People who care about such things will be compelled to remove the cane toads.
If you literally never have to leave the house and don't care about your neighbours, or your environment, then you probably could, in good conscience, ignore the toads. But that is a very rare case.

[Bohandas]

I still don't see how an animal that isn't in your house or damaging it's exterior is a concern though.

Take another animal that eats the same things and plus pests that eat crops. The foreign species eats the food off the second one's plate, reducing their amount in nature. The pest thrives without its predator, and eats all the crops it can. And then a grocer in a faraway town suddenly raises the prices of grain products as there is less supply.

The thing about ecology (the science, not the political cause) is that everything affects everything. A single introduced species can be a huge spanner in the works, affecting humans just as well as the ecosystem.

The "without it's predator" part seems salient. I really do think the Simpsons solution has the best long-term prospects.

Incidentally, most people do have to go outside. Work, shopping, gardening - these are all things that need to be done. Some people also have children, and pets, both of which often like to go outside. Cane toads are dangerous to children and pets, and wreak havoc on the local ecosystem. People who care about such things will be compelled to remove the cane toads.
If you literally never have to leave the house and don't care about your neighbours, or your environment, then you probably could, in good conscience, ignore the toads. But that is a very rare case.

Unless I'm thinking of something else this thing's damage has for the most part already been done.

Also, I don't walk anywhere if I can help it.

Or playing golf with them

Depends on how you hit them. Hit in the head it should stun them

The thing about ecology (the science, not the political cause) is that everything affects everything. A single introduced species can be a huge spanner in the works, affecting humans just as well as the ecosystem.

Like I said before, unless they can be entirely eradicated, which is a pipe dream, efforts to control their population will likely just delay the finding of a new equilibrium.