ESPN  

There is a growing movement to target exotic species, those that have been introduced to new regions as a result of human activity, as a threat to the environment. They are often referred to as "alien species", or "invasive species" in order to give a negative impression.

Extreme language is used in campaigns designed to recruit public support for a war against these aliens, almost as if they were invaders from another planet. A group of environmental scientists issued a statement in February 1997 claiming that "A rapidly spreading invasion of exotic plants and animals is destroying our nation's biological diversity."¹ The examples given to support the case against exotics are invariably species that cause harm to forests, farm crops, or compete successfully against native species that are considered desirable.

This is a classic example of our ability to take what was once a positive connotation and turn it into a negative one. The word "exotic" has normally been associated with ideas like "exotic paradise" and "exotic pleasures". Over the centuries exotic plants have been sought after by gardeners to add beauty and diversity to both public and private landscapes.

While Californians were busy importing eucalyptus trees and other Australian plants, Australians were lining their streets with cedars from Lebanon and maples from Japan and North America. Botanical gardens pride themselves in the number of rare and exotic plants they have on display for the pleasure of an appreciative public.

Now it is fashionable to favor "native" plants and animals and to perceive exotics as undesirables that should be uprooted and otherwise driven from the land. The language employed is akin to that used by white supremacists and supporters of "ethnic cleansing" to spread dislike of other races and cultures. Could it be that the campaign against exotic species is just another form of racism, in this case against other species rather than against different races and cultures of our own species?

I was inspired to include a section about exotic species when I heard a news story from Washington DC in the spring of 1999. The citizens of the Capitol were distressed to find that a family of beavers had taken up residence there and were busy felling the Japanese cherry trees that adorned the banks of the Potomac River. It became a national emergency of sorts and a great effort was made to trap every last beaver; only then were the townspeople put at ease. There was no mention made of the fact that the beaver is a native North American species whereas the cherry trees are exotics, imported from Japan. Yet there was no question which species the public favored.

This example gets to the heart of the debate over exotic species. The reason we dislike certain species and like others has nothing to do with whether or not they are exotic. By playing on people's natural suspicion of all things foreign, environmentalists confuse the issue and give the public a misleading picture. There are actually thousands of exotic species that are not only beneficial, they are the mainstay of our daily lives.

Food crops like wheat, rice, and cabbage are all exotics when grown in North America. Vegetables that originated in the Americas such as beans, corn and potatoes are exotics when they are grown in Europe. All around the world, agriculture is largely based on species that originated somewhere else. This is also the case for domestic animals, garden plants and street trees.

There are also hundreds of native species of plants and animals that we consider undesirable. For centuries we have referred to them as weeds, pests, vermin and disease. There are also many exotic species that fall into this category. And, of course, there are many native species that are considered extremely beneficial, especially those that provide food for a growing population.

The point is, both exotic and native species can be desirable or undesirable from a human perspective, depending on how they affect our lives. Our almost innate dislike of rats and spiders has nothing to do with whether or not they are native or exotic, it is due to the possibility of deadly disease or a fatal bite. And even though dandelions in the lawn are hardly a life-and-death issue, millions are spent each year to rid lawns of these "weeds".

Certain exotic species have resulted in severe negative impacts. The most notorious case involved the introduction of European species of animals to Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands when Europeans colonized these regions beginning about 225 years ago.

About Patrick Moore

ESPNOutdoors.com Patrick Moore grew up in the rainforests of the Pacific Northwest — and holds a doctorate in ecology from the University of British Columbia. A self-described "radical environmental activist," he was one of the founders of Greenpeace, and one of the most radical eco-extremists. In recent years, however, former Greenpeace friends have branded Dr. Moore as an "eco-Judas" because he came to realize that the positions taken by Greenpeace and other groups in regard to forests and forestry were actually "anti-environmental." Since breaking with Greenpeace in 1986, Moore has spoken out tirelessly in defense of a more sensible appreciation of the environmental benefits of sustainable forestry. For a wider sampling of Dr. Moore's views on sustainable forestry, visit his website: www.greenspirit.com.

Many native species, flightless birds and ground-dwelling marsupials in particular, were not able to survive the introduction of predators such as rats, cats and foxes. As a result, hundreds of native species were eliminated. Another well known exotic is Dutch elm disease, a fungus that actually originated in Asia, came through Europe and on to North America where it has resulted in the death of many native elms in the US and Canada.²

There can be no doubt that we should always be careful when considering the introduction of a new species, and that regulations are needed to prevent undesirable accidental introductions. At the same time we must not lose sight of the fact that introduced species play a vital, even essential, role in modern society.

Each species must be evaluated on its own merits. The introduction of some species may be desirable in one region and yet undesirable in others. Islands are particularly susceptible to introductions because they are isolated and their native species are not subjected to as wide a variety of predators and diseases. When rats are introduced to islands that support large bird rookeries there is often a precipitous decline in bird populations due to predation on eggs and nestlings.

There is really no difference when considering the use of an exotic species of tree for managed forests. As mentioned previously, one of the reasons we tend to use native species of trees for forestry in North America is because they are the best available in terms of productivity and wood quality.

In other regions this is not the case. Radiata pine from California has been very successful in New Zealand, Australia, and Chile. Eucalyptus from Australia is the forestry species of choice in many parts of Brazil, Portugal and South Africa. Douglas-fir from Oregon has become the number two species of softwood produced in France. And Chinese larch is a favorite for reforestation in Scotland where forest cover was lost centuries ago to sheep farming

References

1. Environment News Service, February 19, 1997.

2. See: www.ksu.edu/plantpath/extension/facts/tree3.html