by Jim Beers

It has been exactly one year and two weeks since I wrote an Invasive Species Update.  Those earlier Updates are available at http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91   

The subject of Invasive Species has been mentioned innumerable times in many of my articles since then but this Update is meant to be a general summary of the topic over the past year.

Invasive Species is a generic term that covers a "multitude of sins."  To
some legislators it is birds that arrived here "after 1918."  To some
professors it is plants and animals they say were in North America "before
1492."  To other professors it is plants or animals they say did not occur
in a certain area (County?, State?, valley?, etc., etc.) "before 1776."  To
a graduate student/raft guide in Montana it is plants and animals in Montana
"before the arrival of Lewis and Clark."  Whatever your source, be reminded
that it is all nonsense meant to justify an expansion of Federal power,
Federal employment, University grants, Federal budgets, and government
control of property that will dwarf anything you have seen to date.

Our Constitution gives State governments jurisdiction over all the plants
and animals within their state.  The Federal government is legitimately
charged to prevent the entry into the United States of plants and animals
HARMFUL to the environment or the interests of citizens.  Additionally,
interstate controls of HARMFUL plants or animals is also a legitimate
Federal role.  An unforeseen development, as far as the Constitution goes,
is the recent activist role of the Federal government as the largest
landowner in the United States.  Increasingly the Federal landowner role is
independent of and superior to State governments.

Where does the concept of "Invasive Species" come from?  Hitler planned to restore "pre-Roman" plants and animals in Germany.  The origins, arrival
dates, and effects of new plants and animals have long been a legitimate
subject of University study for effects and models.  Urban residents and
some political activists equate a "Native Ecosystem" with clean air and
pristine conditions; this contrasts (in their minds) with "Invasive" or
"Non-Native" plants and animals with "pollution" or "contamination" or
unhealthful conditions.  These latter political realities are responsible
for Federal bureaucrats and University professors and a gaggle of
Non-Government-Organizations (NGO's) that runs the spectrum from Ducks
Unlimited to Greenpeace seeing an opportunity to get government funding and grow government power that they would use for their own purposes.

Over the past decade Federal bureaucrats have inserted the phrase "Invasive Species" in every proposed legislation, land unit plan, newsletter, Annual Report, communication, and conversation possible.  The same University professors that have benefited so much from Endangered Species cooperation with Federal bureaucrats wax poetic about "Invasive Species" and "Native Ecosystems" as important entities unto themselves.  Established plants and animals are and should remain under the jurisdiction of state governments. 

One need only look to the myriad abuses by the Federal government under the Endangered Species Act to know why this is true.  Setting aside the trivia about kudzu or brown trout or pheasants or poison ivy never forget THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SEIZE AUTHORITY OVER ANY PLANTS AND ANIMALS FROM STATE GOVERNMENT.  Once they establish jurisdiction over "Invasive Species" the rest of the argument is moot.  Species will become subspecies will become races ad nauseam.  Private property will carry all the rights and privileges of Zimbabwe farms.  Federal budgets will promise Manhattan projects and deliver a Washington, DC water treatment system.  Federal controls of development, home sites, pets, human movements, etc. will be the envy of 1930 Soviet Commissars or 1950's Chinese Communists.

The Federal government has NOT controlled HARMFUL species on their own lands.  Already, as National Parks close heavily used Virginia highways and necessary North Carolina trails while failing to pay the equivalent of taxes and claiming billions of dollars of "backlog needs" (like National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, and BLM lands); and as they buy ever more units each year and plan for an additional surge of land buying; they push a Federal agenda of "Invasive Species" that will cost billions more and do nothing for anyone but Federal bureaucrats and those who cooperate with them.  HARMFUL species of plants and animals should be controlled by
landowners (including the Federal government) under State auspices.  The
Federal role today is to manage their own lands and cooperate with State
governments to assure a healthful and productive environment for all.  None
of this has prevented the Federal bureaucrats from inserting the phrase
"Invasive Species" in every nook and cranny in hopes of establishing a
precedent and thereby a Federal role.

Here are a few of these attempts in the past year:

Senate Bill 525 (Aquatic Invasive Species) attempted to establish the
concept of "prove no harm" before any plant or animal could be imported.
This is an impossible approach as was proved in Australia.  It is meant to
debilitate the commercial import of plants and animals.  It is intended to
be a model for seeds and terrestrial species.

Senate bill 144 was modified from an Invasive Species Bill to a "Noxious
Weed Control Act.  When confronted with the argument of what "Invasive" has to do with wanting to control "Harmful" or "Noxious" plants, there is no
counter argument.  Senator Craig of Idaho and Congressman Pombo of
California earned a debt of thanks from all of us for their understanding
and integrity here.

Senate Bill 536 (National Invasive Species Council Act) points up the
difficulty we have before us.  This Council is merely a central point for
bureaucrats, agencies, NGO's, and Universities to coordinate legislative
proposals and schemes to codify a Federal role where none exists or should
exist.  It should be eliminated before it further diverts the Federal
government from it's lawful role and creates a Federal power we will all
regret.

House Bill 4114 (Exempting Non-Native Birds from the Migratory Bird treaty
Act.)  This soap opera of mute swans, pelicans, cormorants, resident Canada geese, fisheries, and the Chesapeake bay will be covered in a subsequent article on Invasive Species & Migratory Birds.

Increasing reference to the Global Invasive Species Programme (GSIP) is used as justification for more Federal authority when wording is questioned.
GSIP is a branch of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN), a UN-recognized body composed of over 750 NGO's and 100 government agencies.  These are the same folks we aimed to please with the Endangered Species Act.  If taking without compensation, forced introduction of harmful animals, and loss of property rights mean anything to you, this connection should send chills up your spine.

There is no science behind any of this.  Bureaucrats and professors see
money and power.  IUCN and UN bureaucrats see power over Americans whom they believe should be more like Europeans.  States and some groups like Cattlemen see short term funding from the Federal government like that donkey with the carrot dangling before his nose in the old silent movies.  NGO's see additional avenues to kill hunting and fishing and Federal land access.  Political candidates, Secretaries of Federal Departments and Agencies see this as an opportunity to proclaim their "sensitivity" and willingness to "help" the environment as appreciated by urban residents that will be largely (except for their tax bill) unaffected.  Sound familiar?

Next up will be an article on where all this is going.


Jim Beers
30 June 2004



INVASIVE SPECIES UPDATE # 13 

- WHERE IT IS GOING

1 JULY 2004

Senate Bill 1072 (called SAFETEA) is the multi-billion dollar Highway
Appropriations Bill pending before this Congress.  Federal projects and all
manner of cost-shared highway road projects are contained in this bill.
This year the proposed bill came with the admonition to NOT use "Invasive
Species" but only "Native" plants as groundcover and erosion control along
and adjacent to projects funded by this bill.  We have to ask ourselves,
why?  In nearly all locations and under most circumstances "Non-Native" or
"Invasive" plants are the smart choice.  In the price ranges for native
plants of up to $300 and $400 per lb. versus "Non-Natives" specially bred
for groundcover priced as low as $3 to $4 per lb. no one but the Federal
government would even consider any "Native" requirement.  As far as
maintenance, invariably "Non-Natives" or "Invasives" either bred for
groundcover or simply natural groundcover are far less costly to maintain
than "Natives" that require mowing or burning or other such costs each year
to be maintained.  "Non-Natives" or "Invasives" are usually better erosion
controls and safer to drive into than "Native" plant communities.  The point
being that it is expensive and unrealistic for the Federal government to
place this burden on unknowing State and Federal taxpayers and local highway engineers who know far better what plants are best for their roads.  But still we must ask, why do "they" do this?

I was discussing this with a friend recently and in the course of the
conversation he asked me this question.  I prattled on for a minute or two
and he laughed and said, "that's not it at all."  He said it was because
"there are no advocates for 'Invasive Species'."  His view was that
"Invasive Species" are exactly like "Endangered Species."  They are both
opportunities for the Federal agencies to gain immense power and money and for politicians to "prove" their "commitment to the environment."  And, he
added, "they don't tick anyone off until it is too late to do anything about
it."

So, The National Invasive Species Council is being funded to coordinate the
Federal agencies' efforts to gain jurisdiction over "Invasive Species."  The
IUCN and the UN bureaucrats attend meetings in Washington with Federal
bureaucrats, NGO staffers, and Congressional staffers to "integrate Invasive
Species efforts" with "international programs.  A steady drumbeat from a
cadre of professors "partnering" with the NGO's and the bureaucrats is heard as they lend their credentials to brochures and press releases touting an imminent "Invasive Species" Armageddon.  All the while State bureaucrats and politicians silently watch intently looking for the key time to tell their Washington Senators and Representatives to add this phrase or that to legislation about to pass in order to maximize a "fair" State share of
federal funds.

So the actors are Federal bureaucrats, Federal politicians, NGO's,
professors, UN bureaucrats, State bureaucrats, and State politicians.  Lets
consider that the Highway Bill passes and requires "only Native Species"
along the roads.  Actually it could also have been any of the other three
pending bills (exempting 'Non-Native" birds from Federal protection, Aquatic
Invasive Species, and the formerly titled Invasive Species Weed Control
Act.)  The Federal bureaucrats will work with ANY and ALL NGO's (from the
NRA to PETA) to plan for a lawsuit in the "right" court to legitimize the
"Federal mandate" to "restore Native Ecosystems and eradicate Invasive
Species" on "Parks, Refuges, Forests, and all other public lands."  Then
regulations will be written and professors will receive grant money to
inventory the thousands of "Invasive" plants, animals, and insects on
Federal lands.  As this goes on Congress will be asked for money for the
emerging "national catastrophe" being exposed and documented on public
lands.  Congress will give the agencies money and the usual "green"
politicians will milk their public support for all it's worth.  Congress
will either give the Federal agencies more power or some court will do so
when some professors make it clear that only if Federal "Invasive" control
agents can enter private lands and demand controls will the Federal mandate to restore the "Native Ecosystem" be possible.  

Actually it will NEVER be possible to restore a bygone natural community (because everything is so different) nor will it be possible to eradicate any but a very few "Invasive Species."  By now the professors will be grinding out nonsense (that will stand up in court because they are "experts") about what was where in 1492 and how this subspecies and this race and that population are (here some new words will be invented) doing this and that to various "Natives", etc. etc.  It will probably take two to three years to do what the Endangered Species has "accomplished" in 30 years.  No matter that the Act has saved nothing and even made things worse for the animals and plants, the human and societal destruction from "Invasive Species" programs will make all of that the seem like child's play.

But it is not all negative, here are some of the beneficiaries of Federal
"Invasive Species" authority growth:

Federal agencies will "need" "Invasive Species Coordinators."  Nearly every
Refuge, Park, Forest, and BLM Unit will "need" at least an "Invasive Species
Manager", if not an "Invasive Species staff."  Washington Offices and
Regional Offices will "need" "Invasive Species Coordinators."  Then there
will have to be separate "Invasive Species Coordinators for Private lands"
in Washington, Regional Offices, and "important Invasive Species Areas."
Then there will have to be an office in each agency to "administer grants."
Of course, the Department will have to have an "Invasive Species Office" to
coordinate their agencies as well as with other agencies, and "The Hill."
Then there will have to be millions (billions?) for each land managing
agency to eradicate "Invasives" and restore "Natives" on "their" lands.
There will also have to be millions (billions) to do the same on private
property.  There will also be millions (billions?) "needed" to fund all the
research "needed" at all the Universities to "back up" the "need" for
programs.  There will be millions needed for all the new regulations and
enforcement "needed" to control humans and their animals and activities on
public lands to prevent "spread" and "contamination."

NGO's drool when they contemplate what "Invasive Species" will mean to them.

First off, the anti-hunting and anti-fishing organizations will go into
court to demand eradication of everything from brown trout and Great lakes
salmon to pheasants and Hungarian partridge.  Worms, minnows, crawdads, etc. will suddenly be Verboten.  Hunters, their dogs, and trappers will be shown to "spread" this and that.  Waterfowl foods, turkeys in northern places, red foxes, winter feeds for game animals, horses, etc. will all be shown to be objects for elimination.  Insects and birds that control insects that carry diseases will be targeted for elimination.  Dogs will have to be leashed, horses will have to quarantined until their bowels are cleared of unapproved seeds before moving through certain areas.  Tree stands will be shown to encourage some insect and truck tires will be shown to be the greatest source of contamination since Typhoid Mary.  Then there are the Wilderness buffs.  They will get requirements that you have to be certified by their clubs before you may enter Wilderness (soon all Federal lands.)  Ranchers and farmers of all stripes will be caught in a whirlwind of claims about the plants and animals they "own."  Courses, licenses, annual requirements and fees for growing numbers of citizens will all be necessary for Federal overseers to "administer" "Ecosystem Management Programs."  Then the anti-everything crowd will go into court to show why cows and cats and pet birds and fish and dogs and birdfeeders and hogs and wheat and corn and landscape plants and on and on must be eliminated first here and then there and then.

The professors now know what Endangered Species grants have meant to staff increases, tenure, status, and attention to a professor's pet area of
specialization.  All that is needed is "proof" that Indiana bats or piping
plover are "Endangered" but that they can occur anywhere you want to claim
they exist and voila, a grant and lots of future grants and testifying per
diems.  If you can explain subspecies, races, populations, distinct
populations, and distinct population segments that have only recently been
invented as though they are legitimate and better yet if you can be the key
to shutting down Nebraska irrigators or justifying the governments
continuing dumping of toxic wastes on "Endangered" sturgeon in the Potomac River your future is assured within "Invasive Species" programs every bit as much as within "Endangered Species" programs.

UN bureaucrats see an "integrated" "Invasive Species" program as requiring more UN staff to "work with the US."  UN priorities are often not US
priorities but an "integrated" "Invasive Species" program will open the way
to more UN control and influence in many ways and in many matters beyond
"Invasive Species" such as property rights; closure of public lands to
access, uses, and resource management; and control of citizens 24/7 as in
Europe.

Finally the State bureaucrats (fish and wildlife agencies, parks, land
managers, highway engineers, etc.) are sure they can get money each year if they apply what they have learned from the Endangered Species program that took away so much of their authority without a squeak in return for pieces of silver.  Many State bureaucrats are rewarded today based mainly on their success at getting the maximum amount of Federal dollars to cash-starved states.  The Governors and State legislators are set to "assure they get their 'fair share'" and that what is really a loss of State jurisdiction and authority appears as a smart ploy by State legislators and the Federal
politicians to "bring home the bacon" to hard-pressed State taxpayers.

So while you and I and our plants and animals stand to lose everything, we
can take solace from all the benefits that will accrue to our leaders and
the wise movers and shakers who know what's best for the rest of us.

Other "Invasive Species" Updates will be written as events dictate.


Jim Beers
1 July 2004