Lookin' for Love?

BeardofPants

BeardofPants

New Member
It seemed like a good idea. Let a lone rat loose on a rodent-free island and then figure out how to kill it. That way, when other islands are invaded by rats, you'll know what to do.

Scientists figured they'd trap this foot-long varmint in no time.

Eighteen weeks later, they finally trapped it with some fresh penguin bait. On another island.

Rodents are a problem just about everywhere. In New Zealand, at least 11 islands have been invaded by Norway rats since 1980, in each case after rats from earlier invasions had been eradicated. The invaders disrupt local ecosystems.

In the new study, announced today, a Norway rat was originally lured into a trap with chocolate. Its DNA was recorded, and the rat was outfitted with a radio collar and set free on the tiny island of Motuhoropapa off the coast of New Zealand.

With no rats to compete with, the test subject traversed the entire island for about four weeks before settling on a home range, data from the radio collar showed.

For the next four weeks, conventional rat-trapping techniques were employed — snap traps, live traps and waxed devices — without success.

After 10 weeks, the radio signal was lost.

Island hopping

Then the researchers found rat feces on the island of Otata, 1,300 feet (400 meters) away across the open ocean. The DNA was a match, confirming a suspicion scientists had, that rats were good swimmers.

The elusive creature had made the longest confirmed open-water crossing of any rodent in history.
Click to expand...

rest here

:lloyd:
 
They're kiding right? Suspicion? It's been a know fact for centuries. They've crossed the fucking english channel.
 
How do you know tax dollars were spent on the research?

Everything is science. A problem has been identified and these researchers are attempting to find a way to, if not solve it, lead to a situation where a solution can be found.
 
Professur said:
They're kiding right? Suspicion? It's been a know fact for centuries. They've crossed the fucking english channel.
Click to expand...

You do realise it was the journalist who wrote that part about the suspicion, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, and not the authors of the actual scientific report?
 
I'm surprised that rats weren't found on that island before. The little furry escapaders are everywhere.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
How do you know tax dollars were spent on the research?

Everything is science. A problem has been identified and these researchers are attempting to find a way to, if not solve it, lead to a situation where a solution can be found.
Click to expand...

1. Anything this stupid has to be backed by government tax dollars.

2. How do you know they weren't?

3. Everything is not science.

4. Who really cares about where a rat shits?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
1. Anything this stupid has to be backed by government tax dollars.

2. How do you know they weren't?

3. Everything is not science.

4. Who really cares about where a rat shits?
Click to expand...

I don't know that they weren't funded by tax dollars, that's why I didn't make any comments on where the funding came from.

I suppose people whose areas have been infested with rats care about getting rid of them, and this study may eventually lead to a solution to the problem.

I despise the poor understanding both journalists and the public display over scientific research.
 
Then we got us a real simple solution here, don't we?

You fund it, and let me have my tax dollars back. We're both happy.
 
'Twas funded by the University of Auckland. New Scientist

Fucking typical, eh. You lot always find something to whinge about with scientific studies. As if something like this could ever be validated for you lot. It's not as if studying how to prevent rat infestation on sensitive ecologies could be at all valuable, eh? Nevermind trying to prevent extinctions of local fauna. :retard: [/end rant]
 
MrBishop said:
I'm surprised that rats weren't found on that island before. The little furry escapaders are everywhere.
Click to expand...
They had been on the island that it swam to, I believe. But it had been made rat-free prior to razza's arrival.
 
Bop .... I give up. There are documented cases of rats treading water for three days. There are documented cases of rats swimming the channel. If they don't accept that as confirmed .... But then, those people weren't wearing lab coats.
 
Sorry, BoP. Learning that a rat can swim just ranks somewhere behind finding a cure for cancer with me.

Who among us was sitting about the house last week, pondering the migration patterns of rats? If we didn't care then, why do we care now just because some egghead got a grant?

Nature balances itself quite nicely. Flora and fauna have survived rats nibbling for eons. Something else is gonna gobble the rat eventually. 'Tis the way of the wild. To introduce an animal outside its natural habitat is ecologically irresponsible anyway.
 
Here's a prime example of what I mean. Several years ago, Forestry airdropped some indiginous animals in this area whose population numbers were running lower than someone thought they should.

What was dropped, you might ask?

Rattlesnakes, copperheads, beavers, and otters.

People have been killing the damn snakes off for years, leaving them to the more unpopulated areas where kids wouldn't stumble across them. Now we got poisonous snakes in schoolyards. It's a crime to kill one too. Or should I say, it's a crime to get caught killing one. They're getting killed, alright, just as fastas people can kill them.

That's thousands of dollars in salary, time, helicopter fuel...just so people can kill the damn things all over again. Needless to say, it wasn't the most popular thing Forestry ever embarked on. But some knucklehead hundreds of miles from here, who likely will never set foot on an inch of land here, decided we needed rattlesnakes replenished. If I knew who it was, I'd try and send him a few so he could take care of them.
 
:rolleyes: The study wasn't on rat swimming. Don't you guys read? That was completely incidental to the study.

Prof, it was the first confirmed longest open-water crossing for this particular type of species, as cited in New Scientist.

<edit> I see that the first link I posted claims that it was the first confirmed open sea crossing for rodents, which appears to be incorrect (see above).
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Yes, I read. It seems the most important thing they discovered.
Click to expand...

You read the actual scientific article? Or you read the journalist's frivolous interpretation of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top