Ah yes the old “it’s not a Law of physics arguement”, clearly that is the fairest interpretation of my comment and the verbiage “known to”. After all “Known to” is only “known to” be used as an absolute in the sense of the laws of physics. That is quite the self-defining circular logic when I think about it.
Obviously your make believe hypothetical implementation of a bounty program backed by breeding and release crimes punishable by life imprionsment, render my statement false because I said “known to”, whereas bounty programs in fact are not “known to” increase invasive species and result in failure - despite the only three real world examples used (two of which were in the same state). You are right it is not a law of physics, thus rendering any point moot based on your hypothetical, whereas $50 bounty programs per animal backed by life inprisonment crimes are “known to” succeed when the animal is in central Florida and is a monkey.
Obviously your make believe hypothetical implementation of a bounty program backed by breeding and release crimes punishable by life imprionsment, render my statement false because I said “known to”, whereas bounty programs in fact are not “known to” increase invasive species and result in failure - despite the only three real world examples used (two of which were in the same state). You are right it is not a law of physics, thus rendering any point moot based on your hypothetical, whereas $50 bounty programs per animal backed by life inprisonment crimes are “known to” succeed when the animal is in central Florida and is a monkey.