Come on guys, isn't it like, in the forum rules to not advise people to break the law? Also the USDA crawls over these boards looking for people breaking the law. It's not that hard to figure out real names of people. Please don't break the law, it's not a responsible thing to do and puts us other ant keepers who don't break them in bad light.
I moved from California to Wyoming and got rid of all of my colonies before I left since I didn't want to break any laws. It sucked to do, but it was worth it. It's very easy to find ants up here, just start flipping rocks and logs and you'll find a ton of queens. So far I have one Myrmica and four Formica colonies, more than I had back in Cali. The thing about ant keeping is that it doesn't take long to start back up again if you have to get rid of them, you just go out and find a few queens or buy a couple from someone else and you're back in business. Finding queens is free and easy, dealing with the law for smuggling queen ants (which is a FELONY might I add) is neither of those things. Don't break the law
The law is to protect the native species right?
I don't break the law, I translate it.
Never let the ants go. The law to protect the native species (of ants and plants) is never broken. I think this law makes sense!
But If Control is their law.... America is in bad shape, and I don't think it makes sense.
Obviously people can do what they want. But if you never introduce the ants to the new state, where is the harm?
I guess there could be accidental introduction... I'll have to ponder this some more.
A mindset like that is quite detrimental to ecology.
Look at dart frogs for example... Some species such as Dendrobates tinctorius have over a dozen color forms and morphs throughout their native range, to the point where they look like different species. Sure, they may be the same species, but releasing one color form or variety into the habitat of another destroys their gene pool. Those subspecies or varieties have spent thousands upon thousands of years isolated from eachother and developed a specific and unique genetic diversity in their own habitat. Mixing them only creates muddled genes and varieties that are less adapted to survive in their native habitat, no matter how slight they are. It removes their diversity and thus changes their phenotype AND genotype to the point where you've permanently altered the species, *forever*. If the ones in the area you released them in were being naturally selected towards some type of new niche, you could possibly have destroyed the budding off of an entirely new subspecies.
The red fox, Vulpes vulpes has 45 seperate subspecies as another example, and I can tell you right now that putting a V. v. alasciensis (Alaskan red) in the middle east with a V. v. pusilla (white footed red fox) it would be outcompeted and die, or if it were to survive long enough to reproduce you've:
a. introduced foreign genes into a previously isolated genepool, reducing their genetic uniqueness and thus the variability and diversity of the entire species complex as a whole, and
b.allowed hybridized offspring to be created which will have a much lower success rate and possibly die off, creating unnecessary suffering or harm and disrupting the natural balance and lifecycle of the foxes.
This alone, the destruction of unique and irreplacable diversity should be enough to deter you from introducing nonnative individuals into other parts of their range, but if it doesn't, how about:
-the possibility of disease transfer, wiping out the native species (mites, viruses, bacteria, parasites, fungi, etc)
-the possibility you DIDN'T have the species you thought and you just introduced a new species into a new area
- The potential death of the entire colony, which is quite likely since the habitats are totally different from Colorado to Texas
-The fact that introducing a mature colony into a new ecosystem opens up a whole can of worms of competitive pressure on the native colonies there, hurting them and other species
-Oh and might I remind you that it is a FELONY to do that?
I am a Biological science and Wildlife and fisheries management dual major. I know what I am talking about. The laws weren't put in place for you to pick and choose them at your will. The legislation DOES protect the native species for the reasons above plus more I've probably missed, and I can guarantee the people at the USDA knew about all that when they were writing them. Irresponsible ownership of exotic pets not only hurts the hobby but the environment itself.
The laws were put in place for a reason, it's best to follow them. We all do.
I apologize if what I wrote seems harsh or inflammatory, it wasn't my intention. This is exactly the stuff I study for my degrees and felt it was desperately needed. Please follow the laws, there is a reason they are there.
Edited by klawfran3, July 18 2017 - 8:06 PM.
