You’re probably familiar with the crimes of invasive species (organisms not native to a particular area). They crowd out the native plants or animals of the region, thereby harming property and the economy. Invasive species destroy the habitat of other plants and animals and even threaten them with extinction, causing biodiversity loss. They need to be eradicated, correct?
The arguments always sounded rather convincing, and I thought the resulting mass killings were sad and unfortunate but necessary. Until I talked to a good friend whose opinions I value and generally agree with. He got mad! “This is so racist and xenophobic”, he claimed. “Murder some creature just because they originated from somewhere else? When almost every creature comes from somewhere else!” But isn’t this similar to somebody entering my house, driving me out, and claiming it for themselves? However, when I think about it, this is a false equivalency. For one thing, neither the being that was there first nor the “invader” own the location where they find themselves – humans own it, or so they think. And in almost all cases it was humans who imported the offensive creature in the first place. Clearly, the “invasive species” concept is definitely anthropocentric.
I decided to google it, in order to find some more diverse opinions. But all the sites that came up were repeating the “invader bad — must wipe out” mantra, even after I added some critical words to my search string. I put my research on a shelf for the time being.
And then I received an invitation to a Zoom meeting sponsored by In Defense of Animals, an international animal protection organization which I’ve followed for many years and trust. The topic was “Invasion Biology”, a Fireside Chat hosted by Jack Gescheidt whose name I had heard in connection with the Tule Elk Reserve which is fenced off at the Point Reyes National Seashore in California, to accommodate the beef and dairy operators in the area.
While I didn’t have the time to join the live discussion, it has been posted to YouTube and can be seen here. I want to share some of the things I’ve learned, because this idea about invasive species is much more complex than generally presented. And there is a reason for this simplification!
Indiscriminate killing is bad. There may be instances where human intervention is necessary, but other options rather than indiscriminate killing need to be explored. This sums up the Fireside Chat in a nutshell, but there is a lot more to the issue.
For example, one of Jack’s slides stated: “The correct botanical (and emotionally neutral) term [for spreading species] was abandoned because it recognized the validity of the process by which species become native to a new place”. Mainstream environmental activism and biological sciences proliferated the use of the term “invasives”. Next, we learn that in 1999 President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13112 and created the National Invasive Species Council as well as the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC).
When you look at ISAC’s list of voting members (they determine the policies which the Council will adopt) you’ll find a number of industry representatives next to academics and professionals, people representing the food and agriculture departments from several states. And there is a representative for the Nature Conservancy, an organization with ties to many large companies, including those in the banking, oil, gas, and agricultural industries. Taking into consideration that most introduced agricultural pests in developed countries are often controlled by pesticides, the link to huge companies such as Dow Chemical begins to look more sinister. The eradication policy to control and get rid of invasive plants is a lucrative business for the makers of pesticides and herbicides; after all, the Federal Government allocates over $1 billion for the research and control of invasive species, nearly half of which is spent on measures which include pesticide applications. And when poisons are widely used to kill rodents, it also murders non-target animals, as the graph above shows.
Here is an example of invasive species and their treatment. Let’s look at the mule deer on Catalina Island, off the coast of Los Angeles. The island is a popular tourist destination, adding over one million people every year to the less than 5,000 permanent residents. Over 100 years ago, 18 mule deer from California forests were introduced to Catalina Island, for hunting purposes. They were adjusting well, and now they number close to 2,000 and are considered a nuisance – or worse, an invasive species. One has to ask – WHEN does a creature become native? This is interesting to me personally; after all, I was born and grew up in Germany. I don’t mind being an alien (and a US citizen, I should add), but the poor deer…
Because they endanger some plant species, the Catalina Island Conservancy, a non-profit organization that protects 88 percent of the island’s approximately 48,000 acres, decided to kill all the deer. They will hire sharpshooters with AR-15 style rifles who will shoot them from helicopters, and the hunted deer will be left where they die. Many of the island’s residents strongly oppose this plan and demand that other, non-lethal methods be employed. Fertility-control vaccine could be given to female deer, a humane alternative to shooting them down.
Some alien species are undeniably harmful. The Burmese pythons that took hold in Florida since 2000 prey on a wide range of species within Everglades National Park, such as rabbits, raccoons, opossums, and even white-tailed deer. On the other hand, turtles benefit from the voracious appetite of the snakes: raccoons love to eat turtles’ eggs, and fewer raccoons means more turtles. And California’s monarch butterflies, for example, prefer to spend the winters in the branches of eucalyptus trees which are native to Australia and were brought to the state about 150 years ago.
The unanimous antipathy to foreign plants and wildlife is definitely misplaced. The beaver is a good example for how absurd this can get: common in Britain, they were hunted to extinction centuries ago. But when some beavers escaped from a Scottish wildlife park in 2001 and took up residence along the river Tay, local farmers and fishermen considered them an invasive species and tried to kill them all. Luckily, some animal protection groups are working on creating legal protection for the animals.
Maybe “invasion” should simply be seen as “change”, which happens all the time and is an unavoidable part of life on this planet. We better get used to it.
Good article Jessica. I remember reading about the appearance and then disappearance of the Bering Land bridge. Human types crossed it 35,000 years ago, beginning the population of the American continent of all the "indigenous" people. So, the door opened and closed, species "invaded", stayed long enough to become "indigenous" and so on. Every single year we hear about one species or another, snake head fish, zebra mussels, the list is very long. The news media companies are looking for sensational stories, the Monsantos are selling their wares. What a world.
I saw the subject of this article in my email when I was on my way out the door. It took me three days to find the time to read it, but it never left my mind, because this is one of my pet peeves. The near-universal antipathy to "invasive species" never made sense to me. Every situation is different. I realize that native plants feed more pollinators than introduced species, but with global warming and drought affecting my area, there are times when introduced plants are the only things thriving. I would rather have something than nothing. Thanks so much for the alternative view in a sea of conformity. One question: What WAS that term that was supplanted by "invasives?"