| |
| |
The writer and lecturer hold different
opinions on the issue of proposed methods to eliminate cane toad population.
The writer suggests three solutions to control the spread of cane toads, but
lecturer argues that these methods will not work. First, the lecturer feels that constructing
fences will not be effective to stop the spread of cane toads. He claims that
fences will only control the cane toad population in land, which means they can
move to different region through rivers and streams where it is difficult to
build fences, because doing so will disrupt flow of water and natural aquatic
habitats. This assertion directly refutes the writer's idea that building
fences is a great way to prevent cane toads to move further to the west region from
North Australia, because it is workable and cost-effective. Moreover, the lecturer points out that
local volunteers are not biologists. To be specific, unless they are
professionally educated, it will be very hard for normal people to distinguish
between cane toads and native frogs. Without a proper train, there is a risk
that native frog population will drop. Furthermore, training all the volunteers
would be inefficient, and even impractical. This claim challenges the writer's
argument that local volunteers can catch and eradicate cane toad population by
learning to recognize the eggs and tadpoles. Lastly, the lecturer contends that
virus(BIV) can seriously threaten the cane toad population in other areas where
it is native habitat. If the virus spreads to other parts of region where cane
toads are native, it can be disastrous because it will damage the natural
ecosystem. His claim casts a strong doubt on the writer's suggestion that
application of virus is the ultimate cure for the problem, which would prevent
young tadpoles to mature enough for reproduction. |