April 15, 2003

By Jim Beers

jimbeers7@earthlink.net

Things are beginning to happen here in Washington. A Hearing on Invasive Species before US House of Representatives Subcommittees on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans and National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands has been scheduled for 29 April in Room 1324 Longworth House Office Buildling. I have been invited to testify and so far as I know, this is the first such Hearing where persons and organizations actually opposed to expanded Invasive Species authority for the Federal government have been invited to testify. After the Hearing, I will forward a copy of my testimony to all of you.

Last week when I wrote an article questioning the Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003 that just passed the Senate I was told by a representative of the National Beef Cattlemens Association that I was mistaken, the bill contained nothing but Federal help for noxious weed control. An agriculture representative from New Mexico State likewise questioned how anyone could be opposed to such a helpful, yet innocuous bill. The following is my response to their objections:

"The bill we are talking about is S. 144.ES. There are three other similar bills pending but this is the one that passed the Senate recently and is sponsored by Senator Craig. The title is the Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003.

The Summary of the bill says "it is a (sic Federal) program to provide assistance through states to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, NONNATIVE (my emphasis) weeds on public and private lands." Why is nonnative even mentioned? Harmful or noxious is one thing, singling out nonnative is no accident. When viewed in the context of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003, the National Invasive Species Council Act, the funding of a National Invasive Species Council, and the grandiose plans in Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture to found a formal Invasive Species Federal activity that will grow like the Endangered Species Act - the fact of the innocuous Noxious Weed Control Act only focusing on NONNATIVES is a matter of concern.

The responsible Secretary for the Noxious Weed Control Act is the Secretary of the Interior. Now I know that BLM lands may justify this but there are a lot of problems on Forest Service lands (Agriculture) and while the Secretary of Agriculture has been historically more supportive of farmers and ranchers than Interior: Interior is the mother and protector of the Endangered Species Act with all it's abuses and all the interest groups that want to put lots of folks (ranchers included) out of any resource-oriented business. The Secretary of the Interior as the responsible Secretary is a matter of concern.

The Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to "consult with the National Invasive Species Council and the Invasive Species Advisory Committee." These two groups (the Council & the Committee) are bridges between the Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture agencies and the interest groups like TNC, HSUS, Sierra, Wilderness, NRDC, et al that are big supporters of a Federal Invasive Species effort that will establish Federal jurisdiction over any plant or animal that is not "native."

The fact that such efforts increase the Federal budget (i.e. spending) is not as serious a concern that Federal jurisdiction is being established for a practically infinite list of plants and animals. The looming danger is that a sharp environmental lawyer from Defenders of Wildlife or the Sierra Club will not only argue for increasing the species of "Federal concern" (like brown trout or pheasants) endangering "natives" or Russian Olive or Lombardy poplars endangering "natives" or every NONNATIVE endangering some native or natives. Before it gets there however, the lawyer will get a "sympathetic" judge to agree that since eliminating NONNATIVES is the Federal responsibility, the goal for the Federal responsibility MUST BE THE REESTABLISHMENT OF PRE-COLUMBIAN ECOSYSTEMS. Now before you fall over laughing, is that not the logical conclusion of ridding yourself of every species of plant or animals that some professor says wasn't here in 1492? Will not Invasive Species morph like endangered species into Invasive subspecies, Invasive races, Invasive Populations, Invasive distinct populations, and of course Invasive distinct population segments? Will not there be takings "necessary" to stop reinfestations? Will not there be a need to acquire biologically "sensitive corridors? Will not it be necessary to tell private property owners what they MUST do and what they cannot do in order to control X or stop the reinfestation of X? Will not domestic species of plants and animals from tulips to clover to cattle be "controlled" to stop XXX? Will not the interest groups that want to stop hunting, fishing, trapping, logging, and even grazing and ranching have a field day with this?

Ask yourself why this Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003 mentions Invasives and Nonnatives? Is not the real issue to ranchers harmful or noxious weeds?"

We should be heartened to see the debate about giving the Federal government expanded jurisdiction over Invasive Species, just as they obtained over Endangered Species, a public debate. Thirty years of the Endangered Species Act has taught us that it has led to taking of property without compensation, Federal mandates closing Federal lands and telling private property owners what they must do and what they cannot do. We have seen the difference between responsive (to residents) state management of plants and animals as defined in the Constitution and Federal oversight by remote bureaucrats immune to citizen concerns. Invasive Species authority for the Federal government will exceed these abuses. When the "5,000" claimed species plus the infinite number of subspecies, races, populations, distinct populations, and of course the distinct population segments (as happened with "Endangered Species") are finally included first by a law authorizing a "List" and then by a judge agreeing with an environmental lawyer that the natural goal of the Federal government eradicating Invasive Species is Pre-Columbian Ecosystem reestablishment the basis for Federal mandates will multiply beyond anything we can imagine. The bureaucrats know this will authorize expanding budgets forever; the Universities know it will mean billions in grants over time; the environmental and animal rights groups know it will mean ever expanding power over every imaginable human activity and private property. Finally, since it is unattainable, it will go on and expand forever.

Let me close this Update with a question. What is so sacred about 1492 AD? That date is what has driven all the wolf reintroductions that are decimating the Northern Rockies Elk Herd and causing increasing depredation problems for western ranchers. The same rationale should justify buffalo being set free everywhere to do whatever they will as well. The National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service today want to eradicate wildlife and plants not only because some have only been in place for 1 or 2 hundred years but also because a fish or certain plants were "just native" to New England and not the Midwest or the West coast. Examples are salmon in the Great Lakes, lake trout in Yellowstone Park, or largemouth bass in man made western reservoirs that provide irrigation, urban water, and power. The environment is what it is and wise citizens should insist that it be managed for the benefit of all citizens. The sooner we make politicians understand that we understand what is going on, the better our chances of stopping new Federal Invasive Species authority that many politicians and bureaucrats termed a slam-dunk just a short time ago.