"they seldom attack humans but they will happily eat snakes and alligators." This may not be a good idea. A lot of Indian towns are now facing problems of leopards attacking (and sometimes killing) humans, and these attacks have started to happen in crowded cities like Mumbai. Leopards earlier never attacked humans, but as they lost their habitat and the leopard population has grown, they now routinely attack people, sometimes carrying off kids.

Right. A leopard came at least once somewhere inside Pune, which is a big city, and attacked some people, IIRC. And there are many cases of leopards attacking people in smaller towns and villages, on the outskirts of them, that I have read of, in Maharashtra (state in India, in which Pune and Mumbai are) and probably in other states too.

There is actually some incredible footage of Jaguars inside Indian cities in planet earth 2. In case anyone is curious.

So then it just becomes: does the reduction in snake problems outweigh the increase in jaguar problems?

True but they have a varied enough diet that snakes may only be marginally affected. To bring down pythons you'd need a more targeted predator, or a virus or bacteria or something that targets pythons alone.

From "Bart the Mother", Simpsons season 10:

"SKINNER Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.

LISA But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?

SKINNER No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.

LISA But aren't the snakes even worse?

SKINNER Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.

LISA But then we're stuck with gorillas!

SKINNER No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death."

jaguars, at least, wouldn't be being introduced but re-introduced.

You don’t want to wipe out pythons. You want to put pressure on their population.

They're an predatory invasive species that's been clogging up dam gates and killing native predators like alligators. The goal, if it were even possible without causing more harm, would be eradication from that ecosystem.

Why is there value in keeping the ecosystem in a state we're familiar with? It's not like alligators were "always there" either. Animals migrate, things change, and us ensuring that the animal populations always match what they were in 1995 is hubris.

I agree with the direction of your idea but I don’t think it applies here. Invasive species are a major cause of loss of biodiversity. Typically, habitats change over a much larger timescale. If you introduce a species that’s suited for a habitat and it has no natural predators, you’re going to end up losing a lot of biodiversity as a result. Why is biodiversity important? Biodiversity gives us new opportunities for research (lots of new medical discoveries come from biodiversity), it allows an ecosystem to adapt to pressure (imagine if there’s a deadly new avian flu and you have 10 vs 100 bird species in an area, it’s a lot less likely that all birds will be wiped out in the second scenario as there’s more varied adaptations in that system that might allow the birds to survive). Change is of course natural for all ecosystems but as you lose biodiversity from things like invasive species, you lose the factors that allow an ecosystem to surmount potential extinction (extirpation?) events.

If you apply this same logic to humans, don’t you wind up with a xenophobic perspective? This seems like an alt-right manifesto but applied to animals not humans.

If you don't see the difference between animal control and xenophobic practices of population control, please seek psychological help.

Alligators evolved during the Late Cretaceous (100M-65M years ago) and populated the waterways of the south-eastern US around that time. Pythons were introduced to that ecosystem roughly 30 years ago.

noahA does a pretty good job of explaining why the current thinking is that invasive species are a very bad thing but I agree it's a form of hubris to think we can control these things when humans seem to want to follow a whole other set of behaviors. Still, I think it's a good idea to try to motivate good stewardship.

Here's an incomplete list of other invasive species in the Everglades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasive_species_in_th...

> just introduce an Apex predator - the majestic Jaguar

This is just what Florida needs: Jaguars.

I can already imagine the new "floridaman" headlines...

On top of that, what could go wrong?

There is an apex preditor, but they are very rare. There are "Florida Panthers" in the everglades area. When I was visiting the everglades years ago they were very endangered.. The problem is they probably eat similar food as the snakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_panther

> There is an apex preditor

I thought you were joking but it's probably just a typo.

Until the dogs and cats start disappearing. Local wildlife. Apex predation is a risky tactic.

No jaguars (anymore), but the Florida Panther still prowls about.

Were jaguars ever in Florida? It seems like they were only in America in the south west.

They may seldom attack humans, but it wouldn't be safe/smart to let your kids play outside if there were jaguars around.

Except there are already rock pythons, alligators, crocodiles, water moccasins, water bugs, fire ants, rattlesnakes, brown recluses, coyotes, wild dogs, cats, and pigs... I'm forgetting a few. Florida's natural wildlife isn't exactly friendly.

You forgot the worst, Florida Man.