2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

"Homo sapiens itself is the consummate weed." the discussion of whether or not humans are the ultimate invasive species is moot - at best an academic discussion - with little or no effect on the discourse on those invasive species that are having both ecological and economic impacts on those resources to which we have attributed value. I also find the above comment on Lake Mead to be disingenuous and distracting from any discussion of a solution however strongly one might feel about habitat alteration for socioeconomic benefit.

Learning to "live with" invasive species is certainly an option, and a seemingly easy one upfront, but embracing (or rather choosing not to respond to) invasive species can have negative ramifications far into the future with costs both ecological and economic that we may note even be able to accurately measure. Unlike conventional pollution (as mentioned above) invasive species can be considered a form of biological pollution which, instead of diminishing over time or dilution into the environment, has the ability to both replicate itself and actively spread to new environments. Some invasive species may seem relatively benign but multiple invaders may have additive effects that are worse than two single invasions (ex. bullfrogs and sunfish). Other invaders can linger benignly in an environment for years (even tens of years) before becoming a problem (ex. green crab on the east coast). If we decide to "live with" an invader now (for whatever reason - unwillingness/inability to use herbicides, acceptance of the invasions as a natural processes, etc.) we may just be setting up future generations for additional harm caused by these species. Harm for which there may not be a technological fix, by which time the population size of the invader has become impossible to eradicate.

As the above poster mentions detecting and controlling invasive species before they become established reduces our need for controversial control methods. However by far the most cost effective and least controversial action is preventing new invasive species introductions. Prevention is something that everyone can participate in and is as easy as not dumping aquarium species into the wild, washing fishing gear and boats before moving from location to location, purchasing ornamental plants from knowledgeable local suppliers not shady internet dealers, not importing live (illegal) fish bait, etc.

posted 5 years ago
view in context