The
following comments concern these three articles which appeared in the
Anchorage Daily News.
http://www.adn.com/life/story/3399587p-3430326c.html
http://www.adn.com/life/story/3399590p-3430324c.html
http://www.adn.com/life/story/3399588p-3430331c.html
MYTHS
FROM THE NORTH
The Anchorage Daily News 3 July edition has just reached my home in
Virginia. Three articles in that edition concerned weeds and
Invasive Species. Since I recently testified before both Senate and
House subcommittees on this topic, I would like to comment in spite of the
fact that a week and a half has transpired since publication of the
articles.
First, plants and animals have arrived, competed, achieved abundance, and
become extinct throughout the world since time began. Today both
Federal and state governments strive to prevent harmful plants, animals,
and insects from becoming established throughout the United States.
Those plants that are established, like those cited in the articles, are
not biologically amenable to being extirpated but they can and should be
controlled locally where they create conflicts. Ecosystems and those
of us who live in them benefit from change and competition just like human
societies and economies.
Second, native and invasive are terms of art and not of science. Is
an Alaskan plant or animal brought by migrating Asians dragging their
environment with them 10,000 years ago native? What about elk on
Afognak or caribou on Adak? There is no “best” or “native”
ecosystem. There is only limitless and constantly changing
combinations of plants, animals, and insects that we manage as best we can
for human benefits and enrichment. The term “balance of nature”
is meaningless but is used to suggest mysterious and unknowable benefits
unappreciated by the common man. As in the canard, “wolves are
restoring the balance of nature to the Yellowstone ecosystem.”
Third, island plant and animal communities have always been the most
fragile groupings on the planet. Newly arrived species often explode
numerically and then become either rare or extinct as other species adapt
to their presence. To use these natural situations as scare tactics
(“horror”, “enemy”, “chaos”, “eradicate evil”, “Anything
that doesn’t belong here shouldn’t be here”, etc.) is propaganda
meant to attain broader goals like Federal authority replacing state
authority over a wide range of plants and animals. The ultimate aim
of such “journalism” is to pave the way for national legislation to
“solve” an overwhelming non-problem.
Fourth, the state of Alaska should consider legislation if the
“problems” are anything like they are painted in these articles.
The fact that they don’t should tell us something. Local
jurisdictions likewise should consider solutions if the problems are so
widespread. Local landowners, homeowners, landscapers and gardeners
likewise should consider what they plant and what they “pull.”
The fact that nowhere in the articles are herbicides even mentioned leads
one to question the commitment of the advocates for “natives.”
Fifth, as with Endangered Species advocates, we need to look at the
motives of those telling us of these environmental Armageddons (losing
“the cure for cancer”, foxtail barley –a native- may “be
everywhere.”) National Park Service “exotic plant managers”
seek more money and more people for their specialty for a whole host of
financial and career reasons. The National Park Service has ignored
plant-eating over-abundant big game herds that have eradicated plants
(both “native” and “non-native”) for decades all over the United
States. Now that there is potential Federal Invasive Species
legislation (plus accompanying millions in tax dollars over time) the Park
Service “is so concerned about exotic species.” It is worth note
that the “exotic plant manager” is also a meteorologist concerned
about Alaska “getting warmer.” Someone should tell him that the
Administration opposes and we haven’t signed the Kyoto Treaty so all
those millions for the Park Service to battle global warming like the
millions needed to fight Invasive Species are still but a twinkle in the
Congressional eye.
Likewise, Native Plant Societies want the world to look like they want it
to look. That is admirable and worthy of consideration. But
keep it in perspective. Homes, roadways, and gardens are good things
that are already over-regulated throughout the USA. Do you really
want to encourage laws and enforcers as pet owners and breeders consented
to thirty years ago and now find themselves in ever-tightening
requirements that discourage such pursuits? Remind yourself that
environmentalists, until recently, touted biodiversity as a wonder to
preserve. Does not more species mean increasing biodiversity?
Last, but certainly not least, don’t buy into hyperbole. You would
think that after where the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and Animal Welfare Act have led we would all be skeptical
of where these environmental predictions of doom and gloom lead. A
weed is a weed, if it causes enough problem, the landowner will control
it. If it is a problem that some folks don’t control , a local
ordinance can be considered or local or state assistance can be offered.
It is certainly humorous to learn that National Park Service employees and
Native Plant activists are concerned about non-native dogs and cattle,
“agricultural production”, and “wildlife habitat.” I, for
one, will leave those things to dog owners, ranchers, farmers, and
wildlife habitat users like hunters and Fish and Wildlife agencies.
Excuse me while I put some purple loosestrife honey on my biscuit.
Jim Beers
14 July 2003
|
