DRIVING INVASIVE SPECIES

The things you find on a computer upon return from a trip are amazing.  My
recent articles have included a number of references to the underhanded
effort in the US Senate to give the Federal government a primary role (over
State and Local governments) in the management, control, and eradication of
Invasive Species.  This new and frightening (based on the recent history of
Federal Endangered Species authority) role is, in my opinion, a concoction
of environmental/animal rights organizations, Federal bureaucrats,
University professors, and UN bureaucrats.  I do not mention State
bureaucrats (that should be vehemently defending their Constitutional
responsibilities) because they are merely silent as they angle for Federal
Appropriated Funds and Federal Grants as "treats" for their silent
acquiescence.

The animal rights/environmental radicals see this (Federal Invasive Species
authority) as the final "nail in the coffin" for Federal bureaucrats to
eliminate hunting, fishing, trapping, ranching, farming, horseback riding,
pets, and on and on for all the radical's "pet peeves".  The Federal
bureaucrats see a never-ending job that will extract Trillions from Congress
(actually you and me) to hire people, promote and award themselves and
justify more power for their agencies.  The University professors see an
unending stream of grants and power and tenure for themselves and their
"specialty".  The UN bureaucrats see an eventual UN Treaty supported by the
US (who by then will pass some of this nutty Invasive Species business) to
"save the world" from Invasive Species and "restore native ecosystems" that
is the other side of the Invasive Species coin.  Of course there are just as
many harmful and beneficial Invasive Species as there are Native Species.
Oh, and any honest biologist will tell you that widespread eradication of
any of these Invasive Species is not only unwise but impractical.

All this is not to say that there are not Harmful Species (both animal and
plant/native and invasive).  Any sensible US citizen would tell the Federal
government to name them and prohibit their importation (a Constitutional
task they have failed at miserably to date).  If the Federal "pooh-bahs" are
in such a dither about Harmful plants and animals, let them manage and
control them on the 30+% of the nation that they (the Federal land managers)
own (another landowner task they have failed at miserably to date).
Finally, if you liked what the Endangered Species Act has become, you will
LOVE Federal Invasive Species authority.  Take all the bad stuff (and
zip-zero-nada accomplishments) resulting from the Endangered Species Act and
take it to the tenth power and you will have what Federal Invasive Species
authority will wreak.

But back to going through my e-mails after my trip- a lady I know sent a
copy of one of my articles on this subject to her Senator.  The article told
of an unnamed Senator that plunked Federal Invasive Species authority in the
1000+ page, $3Billion+ Transportation Bill.   -(Highway edges are to be only
Non-Invasive [i.e. Native?, pre-1492?, pre-1782?, pre-1812 in the Louisiana
Purchase?, pre-what?] plants.  This means that all the Non-Native plants
specifically developed for low-costs [$1/lb. with little or no maintenance
and high erosion protection and fire resistance] are to be rejected in favor
of such things as native grasses [$300/lb, high maintenance such as burning
and mowing and limited erosion control or salt resistance.])  Welcome to the
Brave New World of "Environmental Purity" Mister and Misses US taxpayer.

Anyway, this lady received the following from her Senator's staff.  (I have
excerpted the following but not left out anything of importance.)

  "I do know Jim Beers, and respect his judgment on many things."
"Unfortunately, in this case Jim is      just plain wrong."

  "I "re-consulted" with the committee lawyers and highway bill experts,
because I found it hard to believe I would have missed such an important
matter when the bill went through last year."

"staff and I were in agreement:  the bill does allow - even encourage and
provide funds for - control of invasive species.  But it does not violate
States' rights, not does it require the eradication or control of harmless
species, as has been suggested.

  "(1) INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES-The term 'invasive plant species' means a
nonindigenous species the introduction of which causes or is likely to cause
economic or environmental  harm or harm to human health."

"It does NOT apply to beneficial species.  We can all agree there are some,
but I hope we can also agree that there are species that can become real
problems -- think kudzu in the south and tansy ragwort, Canada thistle and
Scotch broom in the west."

"There is no grand conspiracy here to expand the reach of environmentalist
lawsuits -- it's simply an effort to address a very real problem in a very
responsible way."

Well I do know the staff person that wrote this and I have no reason to
doubt his sincerity.  But most people being duped by this are in this
category.  That in no way should be a reason for me to be less than candid
about responding.

If the concern is "kudzu, tansy ragwort, and Canada thistle, and scotch
broom", why not name them?  What does "INVASIVE Plant Species" have to do
with anything?  Are nettles and poison ivy OK because they are "Native"?
What if some States are fine with Purple Loosestrife (an "Invasive") because
gardeners and beekeepers like it?  The definition above is really NO
DEFINITION.  I could drive a truck through what is used as the only
refutation (by the only Senator I know of willing to talk about what is
going on here) that Invasive Species legislative authority is "ONLY FOR
HARMFUL SPECIES".  -Just like Endangered Species was only for "Species" and
Wilderness was only for a few isolated areas and National Forests were
established for "multiple use".

Here is how I would drive the Invasive Species truck (to cover every
Non-Native plant and animal) through all this humbug about this being "a
very responsible way" to control Invasive Species.  This definition has a
crack in it the size of the Panama Canal.

When the Transportation Bill passes, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Park Service, the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
the EPA (and DOD for all I know) will request similar wording in their
Appropriation Bill or just an add-on to some innocuous legislation to save
buzzards or some such thing.  The argument will be that it is there (in the
Transportation Bill for highways) and the rest of them "need" it.  Federal
agency budget writers will spawn a whole new jargon with the University
professors to describe all the mayhem the rest of us had failed to notice.
The UN will propose an International Conference (in 2006 or 2007) to discuss
"Native Ecosystems" and how "Invasive Species" are "destroying them
worldwide".  We will support and then sign such a UN Treaty because we have
already begun giving the Federal government such authority because of all
the "dangers" of "Invasive Species" that will pour forth like snow in our
media and TV's and mail from our Congressman promising to "do something
about it".  Such a Treaty will, just like the UN treaty that the Endangered
Species Act implements, then become (per the Constitution) the "law of the
Land".

But wait, doesn't our Senator tell us "It does NOT apply to beneficial
species"??  It only applies to "nonindigenous species the introduction of
which causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental  harm or harm
to human health."   Well this is the crack in the wall we drive the Invasive
Species Mack truck through.  How?  Like this.

We write the regulations and quote this wonderful definition.  Then we say
all brown trout (brought over from Europe to provide high quality fishing)
are "Invasive" and "harm the environment" because they occupy aquatic
habitat that should have (fill in your favorite non-fishable fish since this
is about eliminating fishing).  Even if you mistakenly think there are no
folks in this Administration that will do this, want to bet about the next
"green" bunch in Interior or Agriculture or EPA?  Think about PETA or HSUS
(working with "partners" in the Federal agencies) taking this before a San
Francisco or Washington, DC Federal Court.  Want to bet that most current
judges wouldn't swallow that like a duck on a June bug?

Think about all the Park Superintendents and Forest Supervisors and Refuge
Managers that will learn to play this game and request Billions annually for
all the Invasive Plants and Animals doing "environmental harm".  So, just
like Endangered Species justifications about eagles and elephants (neither
of which were ever really "endangered"); Invasive Species will be justified
by "kudzu and tansy ragwort" while quietly and seamlessly morphing into
rainbow trout/pheasant/chukar/ mute swan/ Great Lakes salmon, etc. etc. and
National Parks/Forests/Refuges plant and animal eradication programs to
avoid "environmental harm".  Finally, just like Endangered Species, no one
will know who started it all and it will (also like the Endangered Species
Act) become untouchable and go unauthorized for decades because every
politician from the Bernie Sanders' of Vermont to the Orrin Hatches' of Utah
will be afraid to touch it.  And all of us will watch our property, our
freedoms, our traditions, and our way of life stripped from us by
authoritarian bureaucrats while environmental and animal rights radicals
giggle on trans-Atlantic flights as they go to meet with their UN and
European counterparts.  And a bevy of writers will try to make a living
describing just how it all happened while we were too busy or just napping.

If anyone knows either Senator Max Baucus of Montana or Senator Kit Bond of
Missouri or any of their staff, please ask them to take the Invasive Species
language out of the Transportation Bill.  These two Senators are playing a
key role in advancing the Transportation Bill and as far as is known, the
rest of the US Senate is AWOL on the issue while being ready to claim they
did it at the right moment after the bureaucratic and radical organizations'
propaganda machines get rolling.  There is a lot more at stake here than
"kudzu and tansy ragwort".

Jim Beers
22 April 2005