July 14, 2003

By Jim Beers

jimbeers7@earthlink.net

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

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 overabundant 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.