"Invasive species" is junk science, Part Two - 178 words
 
 
 
August 11, 2005
 
 
 
By Julie Kay Smithson
 
 
 
 
 
 
My recent "Invasive species" is junk science letter to the editor http://www.sitnews.us/0805Viewpoints/080805_julie_smithson.html prompted a reader of SitNews, Ketchikan, Alaska, to pen something about me that alluded to "government conspiracy." http://www.sitnews.us/0805Viewpoints/080905_linda_burger.html 
 
Perhaps, by dropping such a loaded phrase, Linda Burger sought to marginalize the importance of what I wrote and its pure truth.
 
I said nothing about a "government conspiracy."
 
In fact, the issue is whether all things nebulously deemed "non-native" are also "invasive."
 
The issue is whether all species nebulously tagged as "native" are also "beneficial" -- and leading readers to believe that "native" is a synonym for "non-invasive."
 
There are many media stories currently painting a picture of all "native" species as "good" and all "non-native" species as "invasive."
 
What's wrong with this picture?
 
It's simply not true.
 
Poison ivy is native, to be sure, but it is also noxious, as well as harmful to sensitive humans, pets and other animals.
 
This is where the issue lies: with words that are used instead of the simple "noxious" or "beneficial," which far more accurately describe the real picture.