WomenHunters
For Women, About Women, By Women

Pre-Call To Action Alert: “Invasive Species”

© March 2006

| Issues | Home |

Some bills are going to hit the United States Senate this year that, on the surface, sound like good ideas…until you start to dig deeper into the proposed legislation.

The biggest problem with these bills is the “Invasive Species” language they contain and the definition of the term “Invasive Species.”  Again, on the surface, elimination of “Invasive Species” may sound like an important initiative…until you see that “Invasive Species” is defined as “a species that is

1.      non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and

2.      whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.“Invasive Species” can be plants, animals, and other organisms (e.g. microbes).  Human actions are the primary means of invasive species introductions.”

Even this doesn’t sound so bad, until you learn that “non-native” means anything that wasn’t here in 1492 when Columbus came.  The lists of plants and animals that fall into that category are long and shocking!  Brown trout, rainbow trout, sea bass, large mouth bass, pheasants, and chukkas are targeted. 

It also shifts the focus away from the need to control all pests, regardless of origin.  In addition, elimination of an “Invasive Species” cannot be done without drastic measures such as massive chemical spraying and the negative effects of fully removing a species from an ecosystem are not being considered.  Further information on the serious problems of this definition is included below.

Since these bills are active in the Senate there won’t be much time for the people in the communities who will be negatively impacted by these bills to react.  That is why I am contacting you now.  I am hoping that we will be able to pull together and mobilize now so that when the time comes for us to contact our senators and demand the removal of all “Invasive Species” language from these bills we will be ready.

Following the segment on the flaws in the definition is some additional reading.  You are also welcome to contact me directly if you have further questions.  Thank you for your time, and hopefully your support as we stand strong to protect our environment and our rights.

Serious problems with the official “Invasive Species” definition:Obviously controlling species that are causing serious damage to our environment must be done.  And at first glance the Invasive Species movement may seem like the way.  However, when examining the definition behind the “Invasive Species” movement the flaws and gaps in logic become readily apparent.  
  1. The non-native definition shifts the focus away from the need to control all pests, regardless of origin.  It also blacklists beneficial non-native plants and animals.  In addition, according to University of Maryland scholar Dr. Mark Sagoff, ecologists have to conduct paleoecological studies and other historical research to determine which species are non-native.  They cannot tell by examining the current state of an ecosystem.
  2. “Likely to cause environmental harm” is not measurable, has no scientific definition, and is completely subjective.
  3. There is no process defined for determining the environmental impact of plants, animals, and other organisms.  In fact, small groups of bureaucrats are able to add items to the nationwide blacklist for plants and animals.
  4. State by state variations in plant and animal concerns are not taken into consideration.

Other things that aren’t apparent in the definition are:
  1. The groups behind this movement want to take the U.S. environment back to pre-1492 conditions by eliminating plants and animals that were not here at that time.  This would mean ignoring over 500 years of scientific progress. 
  2. "Invasive Species" is now an industry in itself, with over $1 Billion being spent by the Federal government alone, most of it in the form of grants, slick publications, and bureaucracy-building. 
Further Reading

 Problems with the Upcoming U.S. Senate Bills The three bills that will most likely hit the U.S. Senate this year are:·        S.770 the “National Aquatics Invasive Species Act of 2005”·        S.363 the “Ballast Water Management Act of 2005”·        S.1541 the “ Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005”

Problems with S.770: National Aquatics Invasive Species Act of 2005·        $150 Million to fund “Invasive Species” projects:o       Monitoringo       Rapid Response and management planso       Research as precursors to regulationo       Impossible screening models·        “Aquatic Ecosystems” is defined to include wetlands making it not just about e. coli, fish and zebra mussels but also about seasonal potholes, creeks, sloughs, and riparian areas (the banks of creeks and streams)·        Embodies the Precautionary Principle, under its “screening” sections, “nonnative organisms” must be “proven” to not cause harm.  It further expands the existing definition by adding “structure and functions of ecosystems” and “public welfare” to the criteria for “harm” ·        Its definitions provide for regulation of domestic transfer of species from one “ecosystem” to another ·        Grants are established for “systematic and taxonomic” research to satisfy government “needs to identify Invasive Species.”·        Renders Congressional oversight impossible...the 20+ Federal agencies with “Invasive Species” interests will be further empowered·        $30 Million is authorized annually for “Invasive Species” grants ·        Most of the money will go to State bureaucracies and Non-Governmental Organizations operating in favored States, primarily the vote-rich Great Lakes States

Problems with S.363: Ballast Water Management Act of 2005·        The bureaucracies and groups behind the “Invasive Species” movement consider any “nonnative species” to cause “harm to the environment” by its mere presence·        The “adverse impact” clauses and the authority to “designate additional regulated areas” gives virtually unlimited power to these groups and the bureaucracies·        Mission creep will most certainly include boat hulls, wading boots, and trailers·        This bill impacts commercial shipping, commerce, jobs, commercial sport fishing, and through stricter, more costly ballast regulations

Problems with S.1541: Public Land and Conservation Act of 2005·        Despite its deceptive title this is in fact a stand-alone “Invasive Species” bill·        It codifies the bogus, pre-1492 “native ecosystem” “Invasive Species” concept into law·        $250 Million in grants for “Invasive Species” activities·        Paves the way for a new, permanent, stand-alone Federal authority (bureaucracy) where, to date, non exists by law

Additional Background Information·        Over $1 Billion per year is currently spent by 20+ Federal agencies on more than 192 “Invasive Species” programs·        In the 7 years since Clinton issued the “Invasive Species” Executive Order approximately $7 Billion has already been spent, most of it on manufacturing “Invasive Species” as a problem and trying to sell it to the U.S. public through:o       Bureaucracy buildingo       Brochureso       Meetingso       Planso       Studieso       Grants·        Our land, water and air are not cleaner now that they were in 1999 through any “Invasive Species” program·        Codifying “Invasive Species” and further funding it via the bills listed above or any other “Invasive Species” bills mocks common sense

© 2000 - 2008 WomenHunters™
All Rights Reserved World Wide, All pictures, articles and other material on this web site are copyrighted and may not be used, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without prior written permission.