These
two questions and answers respond to a request from the Senate Environment &
Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water. The questions
were asked to follow up on my testimony before that Subcommittee concerning
proposed Invasive Species legislation. The hearing took place on 17 June
2003 and these questions were received on 1 August 2003. - James
Beers
QUESTION:
“Mr. Beers, your testimony suggests that the Federal government should not
attempt to exert control over state waters, but has an appropriate role for
ballast water. Many states are struggling with budget issues that may
affect their ability to implement their own invasive species plans. What
role, if any, do you suggest for the Federal government in such
circumstances?”
ANSWER:
Exerting Federal authority over ballast water discharge, like regulation of
interstate commerce, neither involves nor requires Federal control over state
waters or lands. Just as the prevention of smuggling or terrorism
necessitates Federal regulations and Federal agents while creating Federal
requirements and enforcement regimes on and over state lands and waters without
controlling the state lands and waters; ballast water discharge and the
prevention of harmful plant or animal introduction requires no Federal taking of
state authorities.
Any
truly Harmful plant, animal, or infectious organism should be designated by the
Federal government and prevented from entering the country. Proof of such
demonstrable harm should demonstrate significant potential damage to human
health, agriculture, or certain plants or animals important to American
citizens. Such biological entities should be (and are) prevented from
entering the country as much as is humanly possible. Where and when they
breach these safeguards they should be (and are) pursued and eradicated as
quickly as possible by Federal and state authorities. State waters along
the coasts or Great Lakes, like state lands bordering Canada or Mexico are the
busy battlegrounds in these legitimate and necessary Federal efforts.
The
current “Injurious Wildlife List” provides a proven approach. When a
species like mongoose is proven (demonstrably and definitively) to be a danger
and seriously harmful it is listed; regulations direct Federal import regulators
to exclude it; and if it breaches the controls, lethal controls and
Federal/State animal specialists eradicate it immediately. The fact of
“nativeness” has nothing to do with it. The fact that it is not
established and that it would not require draconian government controls and
billions of dollars to ultimately not eradicate it has everything to do with it.
Applying this principle to say goldfish or carp (two well established
“non-native” fish that could be painted by any number of aquatic biologists
as environmentally disruptive) would be incredibly expensive, ultimately
ineffective, and further erode the state authority over plants and animals while
growing Federal authorities and the tax burden – to no good purpose.
Regarding
the issue of States “struggling with budget issues that may affect their
ability to implement their own invasive species plans.” If the Federal
government stepped in and took state authority every time States were
“struggling with budget issues” over the past century; we would have long
since ceased being a Republic and become a centrally ruled nation like France,
Australia, or Indonesia.
States
were given and should maintain authority over all plants and animals within
their jurisdiction. Current Invasive Species desires in many states are
simply wishes expressed because of the rumors of imminent Federal funding
availability and their continuing (and currently acute) desire for more tax
money from any source. Many states will gladly abdicate their
Constitutional authorities in this regard since they are unwilling to protect
the rights of their residents from other Federal intrusions from which they
obtain Federal funding. An example of this would be Endangered Species
takings of private property under the guise of Critical Habitat declarations by
Federal bureaucrats who also approve grants and monetary assistance to state
bureaucrats and University professors in the same states. Another example is the
forced closure of heavily used state highways in National Parks by
Transportation bureaucrats who dispense highway funding to states.
Invasive Species funding is likewise seductive to these same Federal and state
bureaucrats, University professors, and environmental activists who together
testified so overwhelmingly before your Subcommittee in favor of new Invasive
Species legislation. They aim to create new Federal authorities and
begin an annually increasing flow of Federal dollars for invented problems that
will put Endangered Species abuses and lawsuits to shame.
The
role I suggest for the Federal government in this matter is no different than
the one clearly envisioned when the final Constitutional Amendment in the Bill
of Rights (10th Amendment) was ratified. Federal authority over interstate
and foreign commerce provides all the Federal authority needed to prevent the
introduction of harmful and non-present plants, animals, or microbes. This
entails research on potential threats; techniques for detecting, preventing, and
eradicating harmful entities; and maintaining regulations and employees to
enforce the Federal legislation to do these things. Invasive Species
authority should remain “reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.”
In
addition, because the Federal government owns more lands in the United States
than any other landowner, Federal lands (with the exception of those few lands
where Exclusive [of state authority] Jurisdiction prevails like the Washington
Mall and Yellowstone Park) should be exemplary units managed in accord with
state laws and the standards of the communities wherein they occur.
Federal managers should manage and eradicate harmful plants like knapweed and
yellow starthistle on Federal properties and refrain from imposing urban
standards like the elimination of grazing or hunting in rural areas by imposing
new Federal authorities. Invasive Species authority will certainly
encourage such attempts.
Federal
advocates of further involvement in the matter of Harmful Species (i.e.
“Injurious”) might consider Land Grant University research on controls for
species such as fire ants and kudzu. If the Environmental Protection
Agency can be convinced to permit lethal control methods and agents, perhaps
states would cooperate with each other and at least reduce the density and
distribution of such species. Eradication is problematic in today’s
world where agencies, laws, powerful environmental/animal rights organizations,
and regulations discourage lethal controls generally and problem species once
purposely eradicated, like wolves, are forcibly reintroduced over state
objections by Federal edicts.
State
governments can, and do, enforce the plant and animal standards and
distributions desired by their residents. Whether such species have been
in place for 12 months, twelve years, or 500 years; whether the species were
introduced for agriculture, animal husbandry, hunting, fishing, gardens, or as
pets; whether urban residents despise them or rural people love them, the
numbers, distribution, use, management of, and all decisions involving plants
and animals should remain a primary state responsibility.
QUESTION:
“You’ve suggested that rainbow trout and striped bass, both popular
recreational fish, could be considered invasive species in some of their present
range. Does that represent concern that this legislation may encourage
lawsuits similar to those involving various ESA and NEPA issues? If so
please elaborate.”
ANSWER:
Rainbow trout and striped bass greeted the first European explorers. The
striped bass occupied coastal waters and coastal streams along the Atlantic
seaboard and rainbow trout were ubiquitous in clear, coldwater streams mainly in
mountains and northern (US) waters. They were found to be very desirable
due to their commercial abundance, their tasty flesh, and for the fishing
enjoyment they provided individual fishermen seeking a sporting challenge and a
good meal. As a result they have been “introduced” (i.e. transplanted)
all over the US. Striped bass have been placed in reservoirs, Pacific
streams in California, and in streams where they were formerly unknown.
Even greater transplanting took place with rainbow trout that are now found
throughout the nation in streams, ponds, reservoirs, the Great Lakes, and even
cold tailwaters below southern desert dams. There is no way to distinguish
these transplanted fish from brown trout (bought from Europe) or goldfish
(brought from China) or walking catfish released from an aquarium and imported
from Thailand. All are “Invasive”, “non-native”, and
“non-indigenous” in most of the waters in which they occur today. Any
attempt to refine the “Invasive” definition (1492, 1776, etc.) highlights
the total lack of data for such an assertion and the foolishness of judging what
should be on “that mountain slope” or in “those waters” based on past
circumstances.
There
is no doubt that however you define “Invasive” in any Federal legislation,
these and similar species that have been moved about for commercial purposes,
sport purposes, or as the result of water projects like the diversion of the
Chicago River or reservoir construction on the Missouri River will be targeted
for extinction over the majority of their current ranges. Just as court
decisions, Federal regulations, and Universities were manipulated by
environmentalists and animal rights activists using Endangered Species
legislative language and funding; so too will these same entities be further
utilized by the same people using Federal Invasive Species authority.
Endangered
Species legislative and regulatory language has been the tool used to stop
public works projects, logging, public land access, fishing, and many other
legitimate American freedoms and needed improvements. One example of
fishing reduction is the unjustified listing of the bull trout under the
Endangered Species Act to justify the eradication of rainbow trout in hundreds
of miles of streams. Universities are influenced by the possibility of
obtaining Federal grants for study. The “experts” on say bats or
darters are rewarded with funds and attention (graduate students, tenure, and
recognition) if their biology asserts vague differences in races or populations
as significant or habitat “requirements” as needing more study because of
overblown environmental interactions.
Invasive
Species legislation will provoke the same groups to utilize courts, bureaucrats,
and professors in the same way. Meaningless competition between west coast
striped bass and some other predator will be pictured as very serious by a
biology professor. Courts, bureaucrats, professors (and sad to say, even
state agencies eligible for Federal grants) will be prodded by groups opposed to
sport fishing, commercial fishing, boating, gas engines, shoreline development,
etc. to eradicate the striped bass and replace them with far less desirable or
less utilizable species. This will all be presented as “restoring the
balance of nature” and this scenario will be repeated nationwide until there
is no more private shoreline property, no sport fishing, no commercial fishing,
and no boating. Anyone doubting these intended results need only look at
the extreme agendas and radical activities of environmental and animal rights
groups over the past twenty years. Historical facts speak for themselves.
For
the sake of all the things Americans hold dear, from sport fishing to private
property to making a living from the sustainable harvest of renewable natural
resources, please leave authority over plants and animals at the state level
where the Founding Fathers wisely placed it.
James
M. Beers
Science
Advisor
American
Land Rights Association
This
article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91