February 23, 2003
The Threat (Part 1)
The similarities today between something called Invasive Species and Endangered Species back in the early '70s is eerie. In both instances, a Republican President is attempting to deal with a war, while Democrats attack every move he makes. Demonstrations by radicals clamor on the evening news with no reasonable alternatives offered, save overthrow of the Republicans. Environmentalists. both in the Federal agencies and in the powerful environmental lobby groups, attack and undercut the President while offering the possibility of supporting him if only he will support a new program that will save plants and animals and surely generate the votes needed for reelection.
In the early 1970s Department of the Interior (where I worked) a Green Assistant Secretary worked with these environmentalists while overseeing a well-credentialed Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service who walked a fine line as a salesman for Endangered Species while trying unsuccessfully to maintain a workable wildlife management regime. Today, a Green Secretary of the Interior similarly courts environmentalists while using the credentials and reputation of a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Director to assure us of the "need" to Federalize Invasive Species.
This Federal power expansion will undoubtedly mushroom to cover things which, when I mention them, will cause you to snicker and ask yourself how could anyone imagine such stuff? Well, you would have said the same thing in 1972 if I had said that the Endangered Species Act would lead to:
-taking property without compensation;
-the listing of subspecies, races, populations, subpopulations, and distinct population segments:
-the elimination of logging and ranching over wide areas;
-the forced reintroduction of wolves and grizzly bears for which the "reintroducers" are not responsible, unless someone disturbs them;
-the eradication of needed public works projects to "save" flies and toads;
-the death of citizens due to flooding caused by bushes growing on a dam and "needed" for an insect;
-the elimination of big game herds for wolf food or the elimination of thousands of miles of stream sport fisheries for an undesirable trout;
-the perversion of biological classification so that academic specialists can obtain grants and career enhancements;
-creation of the largest budget and power increase for Federal bureaucrats to date;
-the litmus test of environmental bona fides for politicians seeking reelection;
-the greatest power source ever devised for environmentalists to stop everything from energy development to hunting and wildlife management. I could go on, but space is limited.
Invasive Species is a Federal proposal that will expand and steadily eliminate the rights of property owners, the authorities of state governments, the legitimate activities of Americans, and a host of other abuses. It is just like the Endangered Species Act in this respect, and it will be expanded and abused even quicker because of the experience of the past thirty years gained by bureaucrats, politicians, academicians, and non-governmental organizations.
Back in the early '70s I was too dumb to see where all this was going. None of the people I knew, who did know, ever said a word. They simply clipped coupons for their own careers and pay. What I intend to do is write a series of articles on Invasive Species based on the history of the Endangered Species Act. I propose to discuss Invasive Species in a series of short, direct articles. A range of subjects will be covered from the history, biology, and politics of Invasive Species to the Interest Groups, legalities, and both the intended and unintended consequences that will result. All the usual conflicts (East v. West, urban v. rural, Feds v. states, academics v. working men & women, bureaucrats and politicians v. property owners and outdoorsmen, environmentalists & animal righters v. recreationists and businessmen) are present, and need to be understood.
The Bush Administration is currently "exploring" an Invasive Species Program. Invasive Species will soon begin affecting all of us, from boaters and outdoorsmen to gardeners and taxpayers. The time to learn about it is now. The time to do something about it is before it gets passed and underway. I hope to tell you what you can do, and why you should do it.
I do not have a website nor can I find anyone who will publish these articles. Therefore, I plan to send these articles to those of you who write to me and who entertain my writings. I ask that if you enjoy these articles, please send them to friends, associates, and anyone you believe will read it and forward it. The articles will be numbered in the title and will be written over the next week or two, as I can make time to write them.
Thank you for your interest in the past, and I hope these articles will prove useful to all of us.
What are they? - Part 2
Species is the name currently applied to non-native plants and animals that cause problems of one sort or another. Non-native is the relevant phrase, and it refers to those plants and animals that are relatively new to an area, be that a state, nation, or continent. While most of us take for granted thousands of species of plants and animals that were here when our grandparents and great grandparents were alive, such as: Hungarian partridge, brown trout, English ivy, and day lilies, as acceptable members of our environment; environmental groups, many academics, bureaucrats, and socialists bent on clearing large swaths of the United States for something called the Wildlands Project, know that "non-native" really means not present when European explorers stepped ashore.
There have even been legal arguments made that an Eastern U.S. native fish (largemouth bass) introduced into Western U.S. reservoirs are "non-native" and should be eliminated. Have no doubt that non-native means all of these things, and that this will be a readily accepted definition in a court of law by government or environmental litigants when seeking jurisdiction, land control, or control of human activities.
While advocates for Federalizing Invasive Species matters never mention non-natives such as pheasants or day lilies, as eventual targets for elimination, there is a list of often-mentioned, non-native species that can, and do cause extensive and serious problems. Zebra mussels that came from Europe on ships now clog water intake pipes and displace native mussels. Hydrilla, a thick, mat-like plant infests many streams and reservoirs. Salt cedar, a small shrubby tree, displaces native shrubs along waterways in the West and uses significant amounts of scarce water. The Brown tree snakes, brought to Guam from New Guinea as stowaways on WWII planes, have decimated Guam's bird life, caused power outages and bitten hundreds of children and adults. They could stowaway to Hawaii or California, where they could wreak havoc also.
Cheatgrass is a plant that displaces native plants, creates a fire hazard, and infests winter wheat over large parts of the U.S. Leafy spurge is poisonous to cattle and horses, while yellow starthistle is poisonous to horses; both crowd out native plants and the animals that depend on them in densely infested areas. Kudzu, the infamous vine from a science fiction movie smothers southern trees and buildings. Sea lampreys invaded the Great Lakes, and began killing lake trout and introduced salmon long ago, when canals and sea-going ships opened the way. Nutria, a large muskrat-like marsh dweller, causes extensive marsh plant damage in Louisiana and Maryland. Fire ants are also a species that has come north and threatens human safety as well as pets and domestic animals.
When advocates of Federalizing the management and control of such species speak or write, many facts are ignored and avoided. For instance, zebra mussels have cleaned up (clarified) many waterways, such as Lake Erie, where deeper sunlight penetration has caused an explosion of submerged plants that shelter fish and accordingly created a very productive commercial and sport fishery. Hydrilla, which elicited newspaper forecasts of environmental Armageddon when first spotted 20 years ago, near Washington, DC, established large beds in the Potomac River creating extensive cover for endangered fish, a now-famous bass fishery, and large flocks of wintering scaup, mallards, and geese viewed from Washington office windows.
Another point not mentioned, is the extreme dependence on pesticides that is necessary for control of many of the plants and insects such as fire ants. Indeed, those who live with many of these pests testify to the fact that chemical tools for control have long been available but environmental prohibitions and use permission requirements are set impossibly high. Also, the current efforts of states like Louisiana to decimate nutria populations with a bounty, and create markets for the meat and fur are never mentioned.
Another missing portion is the status of genetically modified grains and fruits (many of which are also non-native) under the proposed programs. Problematic native species such as poison ivy, poisonous spiders and scorpions are also never mentioned when discussing harmful species. Similarly, thousands of non-native landscaping species like tulips, day lilies, and lilacs and non-native hunting and fishing species like chukars, pheasants, brown trout, and Great Lakes salmon go unmentioned.
Certain states like Florida and California are very strong backers of Federalizing Invasive Species efforts. The reason for their support is their semi-tropical to Mediterranean climate, which when combined with the large influx of international contacts means a high incidence of new species constantly cropping up. Their climate makes them ideal habitats for exotic fish dumped in ditches, fruit flies hitch-hiking on airplanes or steamers carrying fruit, pets or wild animals escaping from owners, and even birds miraculously blown across oceans from similar climates. Indeed, at one Invasive Species U.S. House of Representatives Hearing that I attended, a Florida state employee was the most outspoken advocate in the room for more Federal dollars, more Federal employees, and more Federal authority (and that is saying something.)
I will remind the reader that early in the proposal stage for the Endangered Species Act (1970-72) similar "facts" were publicized, and others were dismissed.
-Bald eagle preservation (while I used to see 30 at a time when I was in the Aleutians) was stressed, while isopods and flies as a means to stop public works projects was never mentioned.
-Saving sturgeon, a relatively innocuous and little-seen fish, was touted, while using the slight variations found in minnow-like darters from insular Tennessee watersheds to prevent construction of a needed major dam was never mentioned.
-Romantic stories about saving evening wolf howls in Minnesota gained lots of media attention, but no one mentioned the effects on stock, big game animal populations, pets, and humans that expanding wolf population would have. Intentions to force wolves back into the West where they had been purposely exterminated, were vehemently denied for years.
-The listing of subspecies much less races, populations, subpopulations, population segments, and distinct population segments was never imagined by anyone but the sponsors.
-Concerns that professors, researchers, and other specialty experts would skew their findings and eventually their scientific classifications and habitat declarations in order to get grants and other benefits resulting from publicity of their specialties went unmentioned. The fact that 30 years later advocates and politicians would offer "better science" as a solution, can only be termed comical.
-Worries that Federal bureaucrats would List species and never delist unless forced, seemed far-fetched. Promotions, budgets, bonuses, and wide-ranging power were to become directly proportional to the size of the program.
-Suspicions that environmental groups and politicians would lard the Federal agencies with employees with activist intentions for regulation writing and lawsuit cooperation were never mentioned.
-Taking property without compensation, closure of Federal land access, elimination of businesses and recreational activities in the name of Endangered Species were also scoffed at and denied.
-Claims of environmental "needs" and ecosystem "viability" were merely justification rhetoric, and not true.
-Worries about loss of sovereignty to U.N. bureaucracies dedicated to worldwide control of International Endangered Lists that expand biennially, were dismissed, but were eventually proven to be true.
The relevance of the history of Endangered Species program, to the development of the Invasive Species' effort must be understood. Hopefully the upcoming articles will allow you to develop the perspective to judge for yourself. The next article will treat the history of management and control programs and the Constitutional responsibilities applicable to these matters.
This series is not meant to disparage control activities or to discourage
more cooperation between government and landowners, businessmen, and
others. It is meant to avoid the inescapable quagmires that the Endangered
Species Act has created. As subsequent articles treat The Biology,
The Pushers, the Politics, The Real Goals, The Unintended Consequences,
and Current Happenings they will, hopefully, prepare you to consider
What Must Be Done, that will conclude the series.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]