[APWG] FW: [Aliens-L] New York Times Prints Responses to Raffles

[Randall, John L]

Please see the forwarded note if this has not yet come across your desks....  Johnny

From: Southeast EPPC [mailto:SE-EPPC at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Bargeron
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:01 PM
To: SE-EPPC at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: FW: [Aliens-L] New York Times Prints Responses to Raffles

In case you are not on the Aliens-L listserv, here are some of the responses the recent article in the New York Times - "Mother Nature's Melting Pot"


From: aliens-l-bounces at list.auckland.ac.nz [mailto:aliens-l-bounces at list.auckland.ac.nz] On Behalf Of peter jenkins
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:29 PM
To: IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group
Subject: [Aliens-L] New York Times Prints Responses to Raffles


Our case has been well-made in response letters in the New York Times, including by prominent ISSG members.
April 9, 2011
What to Do About Invasive Species
To the Editor:
For a minute, I thought "Mother Nature's Melting Pot<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/opinion/03Raffles.html>," by Hugh Raffles (Op-Ed, April 3), was a bit of a satire - perhaps a modern adaptation of Swift's "Modest Proposal." After all, Mr. Raffles compares the anti-immigration fervor to the attempts to stop invasive, "alien" species from colonizing native habitats in the United States.
But as I read, I got the sinking feeling that Mr. Raffles was serious. He argues that human diversity is good, and the iconic "melting pot" has made the United States what it is today. But would he be as positive about welcoming species into the United States that eat humans? Or that kill us through disease? Because that's what harmful invasive species often do to native species.
Our society does welcome many non-native species, like ornamental plants and shrubs, soybeans and house cats. What we try to stop (or once they are here, control or eradicate) are the few non-native species that turn out to be invasive, or harmful to humans and the habitats we rely on.
Biology doesn't say that one species is bad and another is good. But people value some things above others, including our own survival and prosperity. Call me people-ist, but I prefer native species that don't hurt me or kill me. So no more harmful invasive species, please!
ANDY BUCHSBAUM
Director, Great Lakes Office
National Wildlife Federation
Ann Arbor, Mich., April 4, 2011
To the Editor:
Hugh Raffles is right that some non-native species are beneficial but wrong to lump them collectively as a good thing.
Cornell researchers, for example, have estimated the annual economic damages and control costs for invasive plant and animal species in the United States at $120 billion and noted that 42 percent of endangered or threatened species are at risk primarily because of invasives.
Mr. Raffles extols contributions to diversity from non-native introductions. In fact, invasive species like cheat grass can devastate diversity by displacing native species over huge areas.
Efforts to curb non-native species focus on those that cause harm and give others a pass. Federal programs are guided by Executive Order 13112<http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/laws/execorder.shtml>, which defines an invasive species as "an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health."
In other words, drawing from the writer's comparison to human immigration, let's at least make sure they all have a visa.
WILLIAM Y. BROWN
Washington, April 3, 2011
The writer was science adviser to the interior secretary during the Clinton administration and wrote the 1999 executive order on invasive species.
To the Editor:
The invasive species that Hugh Raffles celebrates constitute a meltdown, not a "melting pot." The fact that some alien species produce benefits is hardly a reason to welcome the many that bring harm.
Mr. Raffles is incorrect that the "ever-shifting diversity" of human immigrants that keeps this country "dynamic and strong" applies "just as meaningfully to our nation's non-native plants and animals." We could hardly tell farmers that non-native weeds make their fields "dynamic and strong."
Thousands of species of introduced plants, animals and microbes have caused devastating societal, environmental and economic damage to this country's agricultural, industrial and recreational resources, diverting billions of taxpayer dollars annually to deal with their impacts.
While zebra mussels have increased water clarity, they have also profoundly damaged ecosystems, including smothering threatened native mussels and probably contributing to the increase in avian botulism that has killed thousands of aquatic birds. The beauty to some of ice plant does not balance the fact that it forms vast single-species carpets where a diverse native flora once existed and also stabilized bluffs.
The goal is to decrease the number of invading non-native species, lest this ecological roulette lead to further economic disasters. None of these concerns, in the minds of environmentalists, conservationists and scientists with whom we work, is linked in any way to the intentional human immigration that continues to increase the vitality of this country.
JAMES T. CARLTON
DAVID M. LODGE
DANIEL SIMBERLOFF
DONALD R. STRONG
Mystic, Conn., April 3, 2011
The writers are professors at, respectively, Williams College, University of Notre Dame, University of Tennessee and University of California, Davis. Mr. Carlton is the founding editor of the journal Biological Invasions, and Mr. Simberloff is editor in chief.
To the Editor:
I was disappointed by Hugh Raffles's assertion that if invasive species are pretty or useful in the short term, we ought to let them be. Though cultural assumptions do inform our response to invasive species, so does research into their impacts and economic considerations.
Some invasive species cause little damage to ecosystems, or enhance them. Some can overrun whole habitats, or inflict significant costs on human activities. When deciding how to invest limited resources into reclamation, usually only the worst offenders can be targeted.
Arguing that cultural norms are imperfect so we should let Mother Nature take care of things in "her melting pot" is rife with cultural assumptions and woefully irresponsible.
To me, as an anthropologist and environmental scientist, it smacks of the very qualities Mr. Raffles is arguing against.
MICHELLE BENNETT
Johnson City, N.Y., April 3, 2011


--



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20110411/5294eb3a/attachment.html>