The Origin, Revision and Possible Future of Invasive Species Legislation

 

by Helen Franklin

County Weed Advisory Board

Director, Soil & Water Conservation District

BLM Resource Advisory Committee, Category 3

 

I've been on to the "invasive species" rewrite language since 1999 and given considerable thought as to why anyone would incorporate it into anything.  I live on the estuary of an International Shipping Port and invasive species issues have been discussed for as long as I can remember.  Original invasive species legislation was initiated around the 1950s to address the ballast water flushed from ships coming in from overseas ports; bringing with it, zebra mussels that quickly multiplied clogging pumps and other infrastructure fixtures in American ports.  Zebra mussels were classified as an "invasive" species.

 

In the mid to late 1990s Southern California discovered an invasive seaweed, again, transferred from Asia through a ship's ballast water.  It was growing fast, clogging waterways and threatening to wipe out all other species that grow around the reefs in that region.  This is part of what inspired the rewrite in of Invasive Species Legislation in 1999.   

 

Currently, USDA posts the target flora species determined to be invasive, and most of these are within the aquatics classification.

 

As one who both receives and approves State and Federal funding opportunities in the categories of "noxious" vs. "invasive" management, the issue has become contentious with the misapplication and the failure of many to understand the difference between the two. "Invasive" has become the catch word for environmental extremists because it generates a greater degree of fear and panic than the word "noxious."

 

To most of us, grass is grass.  We try to find the blend that is best suited for our region and climate, as quick and healthy growth is essential for the prevention of erosion.  Take a region like the Oregon Coast where we enjoy inches of horizontal rain in the winter.  Highway infrastructure projects can be wiped out in one harsh season if the vegetation fails to establish before the storms and rain arrive.

 

Invasive species interest extends far beyond vegetation and the potential for abuse is within implied meanings of acceptable and unacceptable standards. 

 

The commercial salmon industry is once again under siege by NOAA Fisheries.  What you may not know, is that for the last 100 years, salmon eggs have been collected, milked, mixed and relocated to rivers hundreds of miles apart on the Pacific Coast.  After 100 years of mixing and mingling the eggs from one system to another, NOAA Fisheries have gone back to these rivers and determined that one particular salmon in the run is of superior genus to all other salmon due to microscopic examination of the scales.  This occurs in spite of the 10th District ruling that salmon are the same, whether they originate from hatchery or wild stock.  It should be a moot argument by now, but NOAA's goal with the arbitrary selection of one "perfect" example of the species, attempts to place all others in an inferior category even though they are identical in appearance and taste.  The Alsea salmon were clubbed to death because they were "inferior" stock that failed to spawn during the time most suited for biologists. 

 

The language is loosely manipulated between invasive and inferior.  When and where might we expect these meanings to intersect? As plants and animals continue to move and migrate into new areas, how will you determine what will be classified as invasive in the future?  The overall approach appears to be a selective process of what is natural or superior over functional.  Invasive language determines that one species is superior to another and one belongs where another doesn't, regardless of when it came, how it got here or why.

 

A hundred years of progressive stewardship of land, water and ocean resources for the benefit and protection of natural resources and dependent industries have been overridden with the manipulation of false models based on the "beliefs" and "feelings" that extreme and selective measures must be implemented to save us from ourselves.  The builders of false models are caught up in linear concepts that exclude applied methodology of best management practice; and the intellectual gap continues to widen between those who promote modeled theories as scientific evidence over real scientists who take the time to collect and evaluate the data.

 

Step out of this narrow focus and try to imagine where we might be headed with "invasive species" concepts.  The Homeland Security Act was written, in part, with the intent to secure our Nation from invasion of terrorists. The Invasive Species Act was incorporated into and made a part of the Homeland Security Act.  Is it a giant leap to imagine that invasive species language and concepts might one day be applied to include "inferior" people?  Or is it one small step across a fine line?  The Veterans of World War II might be better qualified to answer this.

 

***************************

This is an opinion piece and my views are not meant to imply or express the opinions of others who represent the community on the same Boards or Committees.