Thanks for taking on this critically important topic. The fear of "the other" is ancient and thus easily infects the minds of people. To fear and thus hate and thus kill "foreigners" and "invaders" whether they are people (like "Mexicans") or plants like French Broom and eucalyptus trees in nature. And the more humans live indoors, disconnected from the natural world, the more easily than can be fooled to fear nature -- and thus want or remain silent about killing the imagined threat of the invader. Ugh. Trumpism IS invasion biology for humans. The "restoration" industry is now mostly about killing plants and animals in the wild, in the Man-Age-ment age. Heaven help us. Oh, and this all fueled by capitalism, of course. So both the U.S. Forest Service and California State Parks, e.g., get millions of dollars for their budget coffers by targeting forests and chaparral (and any) habitat for "management" and "treatment" with chainsaws, masticators, chippers, bulldozers and of course lots of profit-rich herbicides. Welcome to the dystopian future - and present. READ MORE: https://www.TreeSpiritProject.com/InvasionBiology
You're welcome, and thank you. I'll be returning to this topic regularly over the next few months. "Man-Age-ment" -- yeah you called it! It seems like you're alluding to Prop 5 in that last part about California? The TreeSpiritProject is awesome.
Wanna chat? Not enough of us who are informed about the War on Nature that is "Invasion Biology." I work to build coalitions of people who agree on this huge, important but recondite topic that drives industries to spend lliterally (!) billions of dollars poisoning millions of wild plants and animals to death. My landline: 415-488-42-zero-zero...
Excellent article. I’m going to use it in my High-school level Environmental Science class for our next Harkness discussion after Thanksgiving break. I just got done teaching them about native and invasive species. This topic is something I have thought about a lot over the years, and when I was on the board of my local Florida Native Plant Society group, I even brought it up to see what people would say (spoiler alert: it was not received well). Keep up the good work!
Great piece! "Invasive species" and "illegal alien" are both terms that shed far more heat than light. They are often deployed to shut down conversation and dialogue, and thus they are extremely harmful. They keep us from examining issues dispassionately, and coalescing around sensible policies. We see the "invasive" language in the bird world quite a bit. How long does a Starling or a House Sparrow need to be in North America before it is recognized as belonging here? And of course, all humans of European, African, or Asian descent are I suppose "invasive cultures." This language also shapes the decision by US Fish and Wildlife to spend crazy amount of money trying to kill Barred Owls in the Pacific Northwest, because they are deemed to have arrived their only because of human-induced changes to the environment, i.e. communities creating in essence a "forest bridge" across the Great Plains by planting trees, allowing Barred Owls to expand their range. Now there is evidence that the expansion of the Barred Owl into the PNW is a threat to the Northern Spotted Owl. That is a problem. But simply slapping a label on the Barred Owl as an "invasive" shuts the conversation down. Is it even possible to reduce their PNW population by deploying hunters? It seems highly unlikely, given so many examples of heavily hunted species that still see their populations growing. The term "invasive" needs to go into the waste bin of history. Also, as a historian, I like your definition of narrative.
I really like that phrase, "shed far more heat than light" and I will be adopting it into my rhetoric, thanks! I totally agree that the label "invasive" shuts down conversations before they can even happen, and that's why it's so harmful.
I'm familiar with the f'd up situation around Barred Owl killing in the PNW. Arrgh. So, the Barred Owl isn't allowed to have agency to expand its range when opportunity presents? Ridiculous.
When it comes to the concept of "narrative" as I'm using it here, I must tip my hat to Caitlin Johnstone, who has written extensively on the topic.
On the other hand, there are examples of plants being brought in that turnout to be a problem. Here in Washington state a prime example is Scotch broom. When the Interstates were being built, scotch broom was planted with the thought it would beautify the highways. The bright yellow blossoms are among the first to bloom in the spring. It seemed a good choice as the plants are both draught tolerant and can survive our winters. But as time moved along, it became apparent it had 2 major drawbacks. The first is that it is quick to spread and rather hard to control with thousands of busting seed pods per plant and birds carrying them far and wide. The roots go deep and will persist. The second difficulty is that many people are bothered with nasal allergies caused by these plants. In addition it is a fire hazard as it is like perfect kindling during dry weather. Hence the State Department of Transportation now spends a goodly amount of time and money (our taxpayer money) mowing down the scotch broom. While those of us who live near the highways often spend time each spring pulling up new growth and doing what we can to keep it from taking over our pastures and yards.
Last time I was in Oregon (summer '22), I met someone whose mother was allergic to Scotch Broom and it's a problem for her in the spring. I spent the last two summers in Colorado, and met people with allergies to Juniper pollen, which is very small and lightweight. Juniper is native there. So whether a plant causes allergic reactions isn't related to its place of origin, though obviously it's a factor in how we judge plants.
Oregon is my favorite state and I lived there for almost 20 years. I remember the prevalence of Scotch Broom there (and in Washington and northern California), mostly along roadsides and abandoned agricultural land. According to the profile for Scotch Broom in the US Forest Service's Fire Effects Information Database (FEIS):
“Scotch broom does not grow well in forested areas but invades rapidly following logging, land clearing, and burning. Scotch broom has become a serious pest in logged areas replanted with conifer seedlings, and is commonly found on clearcuts and on open sites disturbed and opened by logging, roads, or fire... Scotch broom establishes in redwood forests after clearcutting and persists until the canopy closes... Scotch broom distribution patterns along roads and in work sites suggest transport by vehicles and equipment... It occurs on an oceanside slope at Point Reyes National Seashore, sharing dominance with [native plant] coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), on a site previously used for cattle grazing... Population densities are higher in nonnative versus native habitats.”
So yeah, like many other plants labeled "invasive," Scotch Broom is a lover of disturbed places. This is also not a characteristic that is exclusive to introduced plants. Every region has its plant species who love disturbances, and who move in after fires, floods, landslides, etc. The difference with some species introduced to the Americas from Eurasia is that they have a long history of adapting to human disturbances, and so are better suited to things like roads, logging, agriculture, etc. In its native range, Scotch Broom is especially common in England and Ireland, which are both places that were heavily deforested over the last couple millennia, so that's arguably where it adapted to ("learned" we could say) to love such sites. If that's the case, then of course it thrived when we introduced it to similar habitat in the Americas.
I'm not going to weigh in on the fire topic. I've been following the fire conversation closely (because of spending so much time in the PNW and northern California) and have noted there are debates about fuel vs. conditions re. chance of fire, fire intensity, etc. Much of the "fuel" language was inherited from the logging industry, and didn't take into account climate change, and so is being re-examined. Especially now that evidence is emerging (see forest ecologist Chad Hanson for example) that forest thinning can lead to more intense fires. In other words, the topic has become complicated, and I don't know how Scotch Broom would fit into it. For what it's worth, research about Scotch Broom and fire can be found at the FEIS profile for the species, but the picture there is not complete:
Like I said near the end of the essay, I think it's in our nature as humans to judge plants on their qualities, and to encourage or discourage certain species accordingly. I have come to view place-of-origin as being a trivial characteristic in such assessments. But putting that all aside, if one wants to remove Scotch Broom from a particular place for a particular reason, what's the best way to do it? It's definitely gonna be a challenge no matter what, as you've found. The FEIS profile goes into detail on the topic, but here's a summary paragraph:
"Brooms are best controlled by an integrated vegetation management program including monitoring, prevention, biological control, uprooting, cutting, controlled burns, competitive planting, and spot treatments with herbicides as a last resort. The choice of specific methods, timing, and combinations depends on the site conditions and the nature of the infestation."
I personally oppose all herbicide use, and would never recommend it. But its effectiveness with Scotch Broom might be very poor anyway. Elsewhere in the document, FEIS noted that the Scotch Broom seedbank can respond positively to herbicide treatment, presumably because the area has been opened up, so that's a practical argument against.
Here's an interesting story from Tao Orion, author of "Beyond the War on Invasive Species," from an interview I did with her a few years ago. She lives in Oregon, where she used to be in restoration (and left it because of herbicide use) and is now a permaculture homesteader with her family.
--
"I heard a really interesting story from a woman I met at the conference after I’d written this where she had bought a property in northern California in the early ’70s. She wanted to start a farm. It was a forty acre property and there was a ten acre portion in the back that she’d never even really had the chance to visit, she was so busy with the front thirty. When she bought it, it had been a neglected, overgrazed horse pasture covered in Canada Thistle, which is an invasive species, and she was kind of worried about it at the time, but she let it go. She couldn’t really deal with it. She said about ten years in, Scotch Broom, which is another invasive species, a nitrogen-fixing shrub, moved in, and eventually all the Canada Thistle was gone. She did nothing. The Scotch Broom was a complete thicket, totally covered the ground. Her local weed board was really worried about this patch. She still didn’t do anything.
"So, about forty years after she arrived, the Scotch Broom individuals started to die. Each shrub only lives about thirty years, and if the soil is undisturbed underneath them, their seeds are not going to propagate. But underneath the canopy, the soil was dark and rich, with organic matter, and the seedlings of the native forest in her area were germinating . So there was Madrone and Manzanita, Douglasfir, Great Pine, a diverse array of seeds that were still in the seed bank.
"I thought that story was so beautiful, and poignant in a way. She really just let it be that a lot of restoration professionals aren’t really willing to do because they’re working on a short time frame.
"A lot of these plants are really just filling a gap in my estimation, to move the ecosystem in another direction."
--
The lesson here is clear: To discourage a plant who loves disturbances, stop making disturbances.
Obviously that's impossible when the site is a roadside, which is just going to be regularly disturbed as a matter of course. This is what makes roadsides so tricky when it comes to native plant restoration. And yeah, Scotch Broom is particularly well-adapted to thrive in exactly those conditions, so, short of a very intensive hands-on effort that is followed up every year til the seed banks is gone, the Scotch Broom is likely to be there as long as there's a road.
As for your pasture, FEIS mentions goats and sheep:
"Heavy grazing by domestic goats during the growing season for 4 to 5 years has been reported effective in New Zealand, and grazing by llamas has been tried at a few sites in California (Archbald, personal communication in [17]). A study in Australia indicates that domestic sheep had minimal impact on Scotch broom vigor in infested pastures. Goats had a major impact when Scotch broom density was low (4% ground cover) and no impact when broom density was at 10% cover. Goats also stripped bark from Scotch broom plants in winter. Both sheep and goats prevented seed production by eating stem and flowering points, and both ate new Scotch broom shoots in summer [57]. The disadvantage associated with using domestic goats is that they are not selective, and native species that start to revegetate the area are also eaten."
The point is, that there was virtually no Scotch broom here on the western half of Washington state. before the interstate highways. I am that old. Now it has spread widely and it is hard to be rid of it, other than with labor year after year.
In my opinion, it is wrong to confuse the issues of race and plants as though one is talking about the same issue. If you are running a plant nursery and Japanese clover pops up in potting soil, you have a problem. Especially if you have already planted your starts and seeds for the coming year.
I believe you that Scotch Broom was uncommon until the interstate highways. Roads are a major vector for introducing plants because of seeds brought in on equipment during construction, and on regular vehicle tires afterwards, among other methods. Some of the seeds are from native plants too of course! Had it not been Scotch Broom, it would've been something else. Roads also fragment habitat, kill wildlife, and pollute the surrounding environment through fumes and the chemicals washed off the pavement into surrounding streams and water tables. I'd love to see fewer roads, personally, but for the time being our society is prioritizing them, regardless of their many negative effects. Altering the landscape has costs, and we're paying them now. It's that "f*ck around and find out" thing.
I agree that it's wrong to confuse the issues of race/immigration and plants. That was the point of this essay--that our cultural predisposition to view "the other" negatively has colored our perception of non-native plants, causing us to demonize them just for being "the other," regardless of their own characteristics, negative or positive. I wrote:
"I’m not saying that the accusations about non-native plants are false because the accusations about immigrants are false. I’m just pointing out that a narrative can “sound right” because it echoes another narrative that’s already familiar."
In terms of management / tending, my message is that we should look at plants in context of place, and how they fit or don't fit our goals for that place, regardless of origin. That is, beyond point-of-origin, "invasive" plants don't have any characteristics that are *only* found in "invasive" plants. As you well know, there are purely practical reasons for managing/removing vegetation--whether native or not--in many contexts. There are both native and "invasives" that are flammable, that need to be cut down to keep roadsides clear, that cause allergic reactions, that infest agricultural fields, that "take over" after a disturbance, that are difficult to remove once established, etc.
Example: Last winter, I was housesitting a friend's rural property and his Fig tree was so entangled in vines that he had missed out on the previous season's harvest. Another friend and I spent an afternoon pulling down all the vines, uprooting them, and hauling them to a burn pile. We were both *very* grateful that the vine in question was the introduced Blackberry, not the native Poison Oak, which was also prevalent on the property, and was also entangling trees (just not this particular Fig). Removing Blackberries is a hassle, but removing Poison Oak is dangerous. In either case, removing the plant would've been necessary for getting a Fig harvest this last summer (which he did, and which he said was bountiful).
So "it's all relative" yeah.
I'm a plant lover, of all plants, and I don't believe in killing any of them needlessly. *Needlessly* I stress. When we do have need to kill them--as we will always have need to do--we should do it thoughtfully. The "invasive" narrative--just by using that label--throws thoughtfulness out the window. If the narrative were purely the result of science, or at least clear-eyed observation and sober assessment, that would be one thing. But it's not. It's also based on harmful cultural beliefs that--I totally agree!--are not applicable. Which is why I want to call attention to them so they can be cleared away and we can focus on the facts on the ground (which will be different from place to place).
Another introduced species prevalent in the PNW is hemlock, which is highly toxic. It is beautiful though, but can take over an area very quickly and has an extremely durable seed (I believe upwards of 20 years).
What are your thoughts on these introduced species that are highly toxic to both humans and animals? Hemlock is also toxic if burned, lending to an even more complex issue in areas with higher fire risk. From what I recall, it was a vanity transplant, with little regard to its toxicity. And since it can be damaging even when touched or inhaled, removal is even more complicated.
Overall, your framework is so refreshing and definitely helps peel back the paradigm and helps expose the cultural narratives that shape our ideas about these species (and other ideas in general). They aren’t invading anything, they’re just surviving, like all life.
I know Hemlock very well! She is common in agricultural areas because she likes water and moist places, and I've done lots of farming over the years. All members of the Carrot Family (Apiaceae) are popular with pollinators, but she seems to be particularly popular, and what's more attracts beneficial wasps who target agricultural pests. So in a farm setting, where regular disturbance is a fact of life and non-native plants are already common, I'd say there's a place for Hemlock, maybe along the margins, and perhaps with signage if there's going to be human visitors who don't know much about plants.
I have seen waterways in the PNW where Hemlock is dense for long stretches. This was in eastern Oregon, where the riparian areas have been drastically changed to serve the needs of ranching. I'm all for getting rid of ranching and bringing back the beavers. Hemlock would likely be much less common in an environment that was restored this way!!
Hemlock is not harmful when touched. It needs to be ingested somehow. I have heard a believable story from a PNW Permaculturist who reported adverse health reactions after removing a bunch of plants when they were in their pollinating stage, and she thought she inhaled some of the pollen during this process. I've never hear a report like this anywhere else, but I do find it plausible. However, this would be a danger limited to this life stage. If one wants to remove it, the best time to do so is in the early spring before flowering. If you want to avoid physical contact, a sharp hoe is effective at beheading it. Just chop it off at ground level, or just below.
Poison Oak, a PNW native, is also dangerous to be around when it's being burned. Which is just to say that this danger is not an attribute of non-nativeness.
I am glad you find my framework refreshing. I'm still learning as I read and observe and discuss and reflect. And yeah, totes agree that they aren't "invading" anything, they're just surviving. Yay for them!
This makes sense to me. The only way a plant is invasive to me, is if it is causing me a lot of work to manage it, regardless of where it came from. Blackberries of several suits have certainly fallen into that category. Still love them when they are not talking over the joint. 😄
This is wonderful. Thank you so much. The religious mania explains so much. I've been trying for years to reach nativists, and am in a group to protect the plants who we and the animals so desperately need. I wrote this article to share:
I love the idea of native plants changing themselves. Also, few humand talk about the recent spider immigrants, like one of my favorites from Australia, who does so well with our changing climate. In the last several years, I found a community who are natural anti-nativists, which are Birders, who go all over to photograph birds. They want birds to be happy and healthy, and, instead of being afraid when a rare bird from far away appears here, they are thrilled. I also notice that their beautiful photographs document which plants/trees birds prefer, for food, nesting, shelter, etc., and it's not what the nativists would predict. Raptors seem to particularly choose the hated Eucalyptus which I speculate is because of the height and openess of the branches, fledglings are less likely to be injured when learning to fly.
For the smaller birds, they love introduced berries from Firethorn/Pyracantha, Cotoneaster species, Hawthorn, Grapes, and the one plant I thought was only harmful, Ivy canariensis. Fennel is so important, but many parks cut them and other need plants and poison everything possible. (And they won't stop even though they know they are increasing chronic illness and cancer.
Yes the birders push back on the "invasive plant" narrative sometimes because they're out there, seeing what's going on. The endangered Willow Fly Catcher of the US Southwest has come to depend on the introduced Salt Cedars, so some birders have been opposing the policies that seek to eradicate those trees.
The religious component is real, and it's so ironic that it's embraced by secular folks who like to feel they're beyond all that. The belief in an unchanging, orderly world is totally Abrahamic in origin, but holds sway in much of the conservation world, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I really liked your article. I think you'd really appreciate the website Conservation Sense & Nonsense at https://milliontrees.me/ The woman who runs it also lives in the Bay Area and has been fighting the nativist derangement for years now. Maybe you already know her?
Thank you so much. Your work is so needed. I really like your idea about the religious aspect, which explains a lot. There is also a terror of nature that I see, even with friends, and about harmless animals as well as plants. (I'm not afraid of any animals like I used to be and it's wonderful to be able to hold them when helping them, from spiders to wasps to scorpions to snakes to bats, etc.) I was just thinking about how a tiny Rue plant started growing at the bottom of our driveway, right out of the concrete. I talked to her and watered her for months, and then she was gone. The next door neighbor killed her because he said she would spread everywhere. (We live in a concrete wasteland here with few plants.) He had no idea what species she was and probably guessed one of the many plants that bloom with tiny yellow flowers. I'm not likely to see another Rue again unless I go to a Botanical Gardens. The mania to kill what people don't even know is more of the problem and, yes, again like a religious fanaticism.
Thank you so much! Yes, the woman who runs https://milliontrees.me/ is a dear friend and is part of our Coalition to Defend East Bay Forests. I so appreciate her work.
That’s great that you know Ms. milliontrees. I have soooo much appreciation for her work. We correspond a bit on email. Her website has been the starting point for my explorations of these topics a few times because her research is so top notch. I also admire her willingness to go into the monster’s den, as in to attend meetings of the Invasive Species people. I’m not sure I’d have the stomach for it.
Our group used to attend meetings with the East Bay Regional Park District and we'd wait for hours to get 2 minutes to speak, and then the man in charge got the last word, ignoring everything we said about poisons and killing plants.
I'm increasingly chemically sensitive to I can't take more exposures to what people reek of in public places (laundry products are among the most toxic), which is like being in a tiny room full of chain smokers.
But yes, she continues so bravely and doing such good work. We need more like her!!!
The terror of nature / the wild is real, that’s for sure.
And wtf is up with this fear of “spreading” thing? It’s so prevalent and drives me nuts. It’s like people are afraid of anything thriving. They don’t even want their own gardens to do too well or they’re “out of control.” There’s some truly sick mindsets going on here.
I’m so sorry to hear about the Rue! Did your neighbor actually kill a plant on your property? I’ve known people to do that kind of thing, which is pretty amazing when you consider how sacred property is is in this culture. I had to stop a neighbor from taking out Dandelions from a place I lived once. To his credit, once I explained to him how many uses Dandelion has, and how I took advantage of those uses, he respected it. When he moved I sent him off with a bottle of homemade Dandelion wine, which he appreciated.
I SO agree. The little Rue, struggling so hard in the concrete was at the edge of our driveway and sidewalk, but really not his property. I'm still upset about it. And you're right about how sacred property is. He probably thought he was doing us a favor. But I let him know he wasn't.
That was so kind of you with the Dandelion Wine! I've never had any.
I so agree. One of my closest friends here is obsessed with controlling/taming nature. I've had to stop her from pulling down plants in our yard when she's talking. But she also is crazed with hating what she thought were Dandelions growing in dried up and otherwise dead yards in Richmond. She wants them all killed. I figured out they aren't even Dandelions, but probably Sow Thistle, based on her description. I explained how wonderful it was to see anything blooming in the summer here, and how they feed so many birds, insects, and even humans, and are an herb, like wonderful Dandelion, etc.
Yes, it's so bizarre and crazy really, hating nature, wanting to keep everything under "control," which leaves ugly lawns and horribly tortured plants. Another friend lives with her parents where it reminds me of old Berkeley with such a wildly beautiful yard with SO many plant species. It would drive the control maniacs nuts, but knowing what the species are, it's actually very beautifully planned, with so much for animals to eat and live in.
YES!! Thank you for this incredible thoughtful piece!!
I have the invasive struggle with plants, humans and animals— especially the ‘wild horse debate’ which isn’t a debate at all but a concerted effort to eradicate them despite overwhelming evidence they have been strategically and purposely maligned for the benefit of others financial gain. Now they change wild to feral in an effort to make the creatures dangerous in the uneducated among us- the easier to remove them. Invasive all because they ‘disappeared for a bit before coming back to North America? I think that’s just a large pile of bull.
Such a game is played when we detach ourselves from the Web and then think we can control it.
I also think invasiveness is rooted in religion which doesn’t allow for evolution. We know plants and animals evolve. We also know humans do. Entire ecological systems adapt and change based on a number of influences, ours being the worst. Darwin created the ‘survival of the fittest’ concept. Not for a bigger, stronger mentality but to witness how species work. Why do we loathe the evolution of humans oh right… because rules of Nature don’t apply to us.
We also poo-poo the idea of diversity in the workplace and life. It’s another word that’s just loaded. Be it diverse thought or genetic diversity… we become more able to withstand new challenges. Diversity is all around us in Nature and is exists for purpose.
It’s us humans that simply resist change when everything around us changes. We poison, exterminate and eradicate things in an effort to go back to some imaginary time when time stood still. Some era we want to remain in no matter who it harms. So draconian. Just ugh.
Yep, religious belief is really a big part of this topic, and of much of conservation discourse too. I'll be posting more on that specifically. The myth of an orderly and unchanging world is religious, and the science (and regular old observation) shows it ain't true.
PS. When we hear the words conservation and management we should also be suspicious because it typically benefits someone specific like a business and rarely if at all benefits ecosystems and the beings in them. Words as weapons.
I hear what you're saying, and language -- and the thought processes behind it -- are so important.
However, as I survey the monocultures that privet hedge and callery pears are creating in Eastern NC, I can't help but worry about what birds are eating.
Neither privet nor callery support the caterpillars or other soft-bodied insects that feed baby birds.
Their fruits do not provide the same ratio of fats and proteins that birds have evolved to thrive on.
So this is the crux: the most common plants growing now do not support the biodiversity of this region. I cannot regard that as okay. I can't say that it's okay for specialty bees to go extinct because their plants can no longer grow.
To address xenophobia, a more apt example would be the hordes of white Europeans, including my ancestors, who became "invasive" on this continent, displacing and harming the biodiversity and cultural diversity of the native peoples here. Food ways, religious traditions, social customs, languages, histories, tool-making, tracking knowledge, -- much was lost through genocide against the First Peoples and forced assimilation.
So here we are. Should we just say "too bad" to the insects, birds, bees, soil bacteria, and animals that evolved in conjunction with sets of plants and who cannot consume the plants they did not evolve with?
Do we declare that monoculture of unsupported plants are just dandy lest we be accused of xenophobia?
I will say that the "native" plant advocates I know are the least xenophobic I know, and much more likely to be advocating for multiculturalism and merciful immigration policies.
Again, we must get to the root of the issue here. The label "invasive" is just blaming the messenger. The Privit and Callery Pear would not have been able to establish themselves without human disturbance. In order to address their current prevalence, one must look at what happened to make them at home there. What land use change? (like agriculture and resource extraction.) What animal extirpations? (like the eradication of beavers and predators.) Nature is responding to how we fucked thing up, and instead of looking at how we fucked things up and how we might unfuck them, we're villainizing certain plants, which is the same as villainizing Nature's response.
So the real crux is us and what we have done and how we don't want to own up to it.
To get to that crux, we need to look at what has been called "invasive land ethic." This includes not just the domineering activities like farming and mining and urbanization that led to introduced plants thriving, but to our attitudes about them and our approaches to dealing with them. For more on that, I'll point you to a 2018 paper, “Anishnaabe Aki: an indigenous perspective on the global threat of invasive species,” published in the peer-reviewed journal Sustainability Science. The lead author is indigenous and went to school for the formal education, then returned to his native home to look at these issues in the light of both perspectives.
Here's a quotation from it:
"Colonialism’s ongoing legacy and consequences are significant to Anishnaabe understandings of environmental change, though in ways that are more nuanced than a native and nonnative binary. In the broadest sense, settler colonialism in North America radically disrupted Anishnaabe connections to place, livelihoods, and social relations with non-humans (White 1991; Norrgard 2014). Our interview data provide insights into connections between settler colonialism and invasive species. We found that Anishnaabe tradition bearers are more concerned about an “invasive land ethic” than the threats of invasive species. Elements of this invasive land ethic include the imposition of Euro-American property ownership regimes, “command and control” forms of environmental management, and a worldview predicated on the separation of people from nature. Our interlocutors described the ways this invasive land ethic manifests in nonindigenous governmental and NGO approaches to invasive species management."
Thanks for taking on this critically important topic. The fear of "the other" is ancient and thus easily infects the minds of people. To fear and thus hate and thus kill "foreigners" and "invaders" whether they are people (like "Mexicans") or plants like French Broom and eucalyptus trees in nature. And the more humans live indoors, disconnected from the natural world, the more easily than can be fooled to fear nature -- and thus want or remain silent about killing the imagined threat of the invader. Ugh. Trumpism IS invasion biology for humans. The "restoration" industry is now mostly about killing plants and animals in the wild, in the Man-Age-ment age. Heaven help us. Oh, and this all fueled by capitalism, of course. So both the U.S. Forest Service and California State Parks, e.g., get millions of dollars for their budget coffers by targeting forests and chaparral (and any) habitat for "management" and "treatment" with chainsaws, masticators, chippers, bulldozers and of course lots of profit-rich herbicides. Welcome to the dystopian future - and present. READ MORE: https://www.TreeSpiritProject.com/InvasionBiology
You're welcome, and thank you. I'll be returning to this topic regularly over the next few months. "Man-Age-ment" -- yeah you called it! It seems like you're alluding to Prop 5 in that last part about California? The TreeSpiritProject is awesome.
Wanna chat? Not enough of us who are informed about the War on Nature that is "Invasion Biology." I work to build coalitions of people who agree on this huge, important but recondite topic that drives industries to spend lliterally (!) billions of dollars poisoning millions of wild plants and animals to death. My landline: 415-488-42-zero-zero...
Yes I would like to chat sometime, thanks!
Excellent article. I’m going to use it in my High-school level Environmental Science class for our next Harkness discussion after Thanksgiving break. I just got done teaching them about native and invasive species. This topic is something I have thought about a lot over the years, and when I was on the board of my local Florida Native Plant Society group, I even brought it up to see what people would say (spoiler alert: it was not received well). Keep up the good work!
Thanks so much, Stephanie, and I'm thrilled you found it useful as an educator!
Great piece! "Invasive species" and "illegal alien" are both terms that shed far more heat than light. They are often deployed to shut down conversation and dialogue, and thus they are extremely harmful. They keep us from examining issues dispassionately, and coalescing around sensible policies. We see the "invasive" language in the bird world quite a bit. How long does a Starling or a House Sparrow need to be in North America before it is recognized as belonging here? And of course, all humans of European, African, or Asian descent are I suppose "invasive cultures." This language also shapes the decision by US Fish and Wildlife to spend crazy amount of money trying to kill Barred Owls in the Pacific Northwest, because they are deemed to have arrived their only because of human-induced changes to the environment, i.e. communities creating in essence a "forest bridge" across the Great Plains by planting trees, allowing Barred Owls to expand their range. Now there is evidence that the expansion of the Barred Owl into the PNW is a threat to the Northern Spotted Owl. That is a problem. But simply slapping a label on the Barred Owl as an "invasive" shuts the conversation down. Is it even possible to reduce their PNW population by deploying hunters? It seems highly unlikely, given so many examples of heavily hunted species that still see their populations growing. The term "invasive" needs to go into the waste bin of history. Also, as a historian, I like your definition of narrative.
I really like that phrase, "shed far more heat than light" and I will be adopting it into my rhetoric, thanks! I totally agree that the label "invasive" shuts down conversations before they can even happen, and that's why it's so harmful.
I'm familiar with the f'd up situation around Barred Owl killing in the PNW. Arrgh. So, the Barred Owl isn't allowed to have agency to expand its range when opportunity presents? Ridiculous.
When it comes to the concept of "narrative" as I'm using it here, I must tip my hat to Caitlin Johnstone, who has written extensively on the topic.
Fascinating article. Thx.
You're welcome, Donna. I'm glad you appreciated it. More to come on these topics.
Shared with friends in email too.
Thank you very much, that really helps!
Great article!
Thanks, Tara!
This is so utterly fascinating. Thank you for writing this. I think I'm going to be mulling it over for a while. I'm really eager to read more.
Glad you appreciated it, Lex. There's more coming on this topic (and older posts too).
Spot on, as usual Kollibri! Want me to post on my Substack? How about on my brand new X page?
Please post it far and wide, John!
Will do.
On the other hand, there are examples of plants being brought in that turnout to be a problem. Here in Washington state a prime example is Scotch broom. When the Interstates were being built, scotch broom was planted with the thought it would beautify the highways. The bright yellow blossoms are among the first to bloom in the spring. It seemed a good choice as the plants are both draught tolerant and can survive our winters. But as time moved along, it became apparent it had 2 major drawbacks. The first is that it is quick to spread and rather hard to control with thousands of busting seed pods per plant and birds carrying them far and wide. The roots go deep and will persist. The second difficulty is that many people are bothered with nasal allergies caused by these plants. In addition it is a fire hazard as it is like perfect kindling during dry weather. Hence the State Department of Transportation now spends a goodly amount of time and money (our taxpayer money) mowing down the scotch broom. While those of us who live near the highways often spend time each spring pulling up new growth and doing what we can to keep it from taking over our pastures and yards.
Last time I was in Oregon (summer '22), I met someone whose mother was allergic to Scotch Broom and it's a problem for her in the spring. I spent the last two summers in Colorado, and met people with allergies to Juniper pollen, which is very small and lightweight. Juniper is native there. So whether a plant causes allergic reactions isn't related to its place of origin, though obviously it's a factor in how we judge plants.
Oregon is my favorite state and I lived there for almost 20 years. I remember the prevalence of Scotch Broom there (and in Washington and northern California), mostly along roadsides and abandoned agricultural land. According to the profile for Scotch Broom in the US Forest Service's Fire Effects Information Database (FEIS):
“Scotch broom does not grow well in forested areas but invades rapidly following logging, land clearing, and burning. Scotch broom has become a serious pest in logged areas replanted with conifer seedlings, and is commonly found on clearcuts and on open sites disturbed and opened by logging, roads, or fire... Scotch broom establishes in redwood forests after clearcutting and persists until the canopy closes... Scotch broom distribution patterns along roads and in work sites suggest transport by vehicles and equipment... It occurs on an oceanside slope at Point Reyes National Seashore, sharing dominance with [native plant] coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), on a site previously used for cattle grazing... Population densities are higher in nonnative versus native habitats.”
So yeah, like many other plants labeled "invasive," Scotch Broom is a lover of disturbed places. This is also not a characteristic that is exclusive to introduced plants. Every region has its plant species who love disturbances, and who move in after fires, floods, landslides, etc. The difference with some species introduced to the Americas from Eurasia is that they have a long history of adapting to human disturbances, and so are better suited to things like roads, logging, agriculture, etc. In its native range, Scotch Broom is especially common in England and Ireland, which are both places that were heavily deforested over the last couple millennia, so that's arguably where it adapted to ("learned" we could say) to love such sites. If that's the case, then of course it thrived when we introduced it to similar habitat in the Americas.
I'm not going to weigh in on the fire topic. I've been following the fire conversation closely (because of spending so much time in the PNW and northern California) and have noted there are debates about fuel vs. conditions re. chance of fire, fire intensity, etc. Much of the "fuel" language was inherited from the logging industry, and didn't take into account climate change, and so is being re-examined. Especially now that evidence is emerging (see forest ecologist Chad Hanson for example) that forest thinning can lead to more intense fires. In other words, the topic has become complicated, and I don't know how Scotch Broom would fit into it. For what it's worth, research about Scotch Broom and fire can be found at the FEIS profile for the species, but the picture there is not complete:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/cytspp/all.html
Like I said near the end of the essay, I think it's in our nature as humans to judge plants on their qualities, and to encourage or discourage certain species accordingly. I have come to view place-of-origin as being a trivial characteristic in such assessments. But putting that all aside, if one wants to remove Scotch Broom from a particular place for a particular reason, what's the best way to do it? It's definitely gonna be a challenge no matter what, as you've found. The FEIS profile goes into detail on the topic, but here's a summary paragraph:
"Brooms are best controlled by an integrated vegetation management program including monitoring, prevention, biological control, uprooting, cutting, controlled burns, competitive planting, and spot treatments with herbicides as a last resort. The choice of specific methods, timing, and combinations depends on the site conditions and the nature of the infestation."
I personally oppose all herbicide use, and would never recommend it. But its effectiveness with Scotch Broom might be very poor anyway. Elsewhere in the document, FEIS noted that the Scotch Broom seedbank can respond positively to herbicide treatment, presumably because the area has been opened up, so that's a practical argument against.
Here's an interesting story from Tao Orion, author of "Beyond the War on Invasive Species," from an interview I did with her a few years ago. She lives in Oregon, where she used to be in restoration (and left it because of herbicide use) and is now a permaculture homesteader with her family.
--
"I heard a really interesting story from a woman I met at the conference after I’d written this where she had bought a property in northern California in the early ’70s. She wanted to start a farm. It was a forty acre property and there was a ten acre portion in the back that she’d never even really had the chance to visit, she was so busy with the front thirty. When she bought it, it had been a neglected, overgrazed horse pasture covered in Canada Thistle, which is an invasive species, and she was kind of worried about it at the time, but she let it go. She couldn’t really deal with it. She said about ten years in, Scotch Broom, which is another invasive species, a nitrogen-fixing shrub, moved in, and eventually all the Canada Thistle was gone. She did nothing. The Scotch Broom was a complete thicket, totally covered the ground. Her local weed board was really worried about this patch. She still didn’t do anything.
"So, about forty years after she arrived, the Scotch Broom individuals started to die. Each shrub only lives about thirty years, and if the soil is undisturbed underneath them, their seeds are not going to propagate. But underneath the canopy, the soil was dark and rich, with organic matter, and the seedlings of the native forest in her area were germinating . So there was Madrone and Manzanita, Douglasfir, Great Pine, a diverse array of seeds that were still in the seed bank.
"I thought that story was so beautiful, and poignant in a way. She really just let it be that a lot of restoration professionals aren’t really willing to do because they’re working on a short time frame.
"A lot of these plants are really just filling a gap in my estimation, to move the ecosystem in another direction."
--
The lesson here is clear: To discourage a plant who loves disturbances, stop making disturbances.
Obviously that's impossible when the site is a roadside, which is just going to be regularly disturbed as a matter of course. This is what makes roadsides so tricky when it comes to native plant restoration. And yeah, Scotch Broom is particularly well-adapted to thrive in exactly those conditions, so, short of a very intensive hands-on effort that is followed up every year til the seed banks is gone, the Scotch Broom is likely to be there as long as there's a road.
As for your pasture, FEIS mentions goats and sheep:
"Heavy grazing by domestic goats during the growing season for 4 to 5 years has been reported effective in New Zealand, and grazing by llamas has been tried at a few sites in California (Archbald, personal communication in [17]). A study in Australia indicates that domestic sheep had minimal impact on Scotch broom vigor in infested pastures. Goats had a major impact when Scotch broom density was low (4% ground cover) and no impact when broom density was at 10% cover. Goats also stripped bark from Scotch broom plants in winter. Both sheep and goats prevented seed production by eating stem and flowering points, and both ate new Scotch broom shoots in summer [57]. The disadvantage associated with using domestic goats is that they are not selective, and native species that start to revegetate the area are also eaten."
Thanks for the comment!
The point is, that there was virtually no Scotch broom here on the western half of Washington state. before the interstate highways. I am that old. Now it has spread widely and it is hard to be rid of it, other than with labor year after year.
In my opinion, it is wrong to confuse the issues of race and plants as though one is talking about the same issue. If you are running a plant nursery and Japanese clover pops up in potting soil, you have a problem. Especially if you have already planted your starts and seeds for the coming year.
I believe you that Scotch Broom was uncommon until the interstate highways. Roads are a major vector for introducing plants because of seeds brought in on equipment during construction, and on regular vehicle tires afterwards, among other methods. Some of the seeds are from native plants too of course! Had it not been Scotch Broom, it would've been something else. Roads also fragment habitat, kill wildlife, and pollute the surrounding environment through fumes and the chemicals washed off the pavement into surrounding streams and water tables. I'd love to see fewer roads, personally, but for the time being our society is prioritizing them, regardless of their many negative effects. Altering the landscape has costs, and we're paying them now. It's that "f*ck around and find out" thing.
I agree that it's wrong to confuse the issues of race/immigration and plants. That was the point of this essay--that our cultural predisposition to view "the other" negatively has colored our perception of non-native plants, causing us to demonize them just for being "the other," regardless of their own characteristics, negative or positive. I wrote:
"I’m not saying that the accusations about non-native plants are false because the accusations about immigrants are false. I’m just pointing out that a narrative can “sound right” because it echoes another narrative that’s already familiar."
In terms of management / tending, my message is that we should look at plants in context of place, and how they fit or don't fit our goals for that place, regardless of origin. That is, beyond point-of-origin, "invasive" plants don't have any characteristics that are *only* found in "invasive" plants. As you well know, there are purely practical reasons for managing/removing vegetation--whether native or not--in many contexts. There are both native and "invasives" that are flammable, that need to be cut down to keep roadsides clear, that cause allergic reactions, that infest agricultural fields, that "take over" after a disturbance, that are difficult to remove once established, etc.
Example: Last winter, I was housesitting a friend's rural property and his Fig tree was so entangled in vines that he had missed out on the previous season's harvest. Another friend and I spent an afternoon pulling down all the vines, uprooting them, and hauling them to a burn pile. We were both *very* grateful that the vine in question was the introduced Blackberry, not the native Poison Oak, which was also prevalent on the property, and was also entangling trees (just not this particular Fig). Removing Blackberries is a hassle, but removing Poison Oak is dangerous. In either case, removing the plant would've been necessary for getting a Fig harvest this last summer (which he did, and which he said was bountiful).
So "it's all relative" yeah.
I'm a plant lover, of all plants, and I don't believe in killing any of them needlessly. *Needlessly* I stress. When we do have need to kill them--as we will always have need to do--we should do it thoughtfully. The "invasive" narrative--just by using that label--throws thoughtfulness out the window. If the narrative were purely the result of science, or at least clear-eyed observation and sober assessment, that would be one thing. But it's not. It's also based on harmful cultural beliefs that--I totally agree!--are not applicable. Which is why I want to call attention to them so they can be cleared away and we can focus on the facts on the ground (which will be different from place to place).
Another introduced species prevalent in the PNW is hemlock, which is highly toxic. It is beautiful though, but can take over an area very quickly and has an extremely durable seed (I believe upwards of 20 years).
What are your thoughts on these introduced species that are highly toxic to both humans and animals? Hemlock is also toxic if burned, lending to an even more complex issue in areas with higher fire risk. From what I recall, it was a vanity transplant, with little regard to its toxicity. And since it can be damaging even when touched or inhaled, removal is even more complicated.
Overall, your framework is so refreshing and definitely helps peel back the paradigm and helps expose the cultural narratives that shape our ideas about these species (and other ideas in general). They aren’t invading anything, they’re just surviving, like all life.
I know Hemlock very well! She is common in agricultural areas because she likes water and moist places, and I've done lots of farming over the years. All members of the Carrot Family (Apiaceae) are popular with pollinators, but she seems to be particularly popular, and what's more attracts beneficial wasps who target agricultural pests. So in a farm setting, where regular disturbance is a fact of life and non-native plants are already common, I'd say there's a place for Hemlock, maybe along the margins, and perhaps with signage if there's going to be human visitors who don't know much about plants.
I have seen waterways in the PNW where Hemlock is dense for long stretches. This was in eastern Oregon, where the riparian areas have been drastically changed to serve the needs of ranching. I'm all for getting rid of ranching and bringing back the beavers. Hemlock would likely be much less common in an environment that was restored this way!!
Hemlock is not harmful when touched. It needs to be ingested somehow. I have heard a believable story from a PNW Permaculturist who reported adverse health reactions after removing a bunch of plants when they were in their pollinating stage, and she thought she inhaled some of the pollen during this process. I've never hear a report like this anywhere else, but I do find it plausible. However, this would be a danger limited to this life stage. If one wants to remove it, the best time to do so is in the early spring before flowering. If you want to avoid physical contact, a sharp hoe is effective at beheading it. Just chop it off at ground level, or just below.
Poison Oak, a PNW native, is also dangerous to be around when it's being burned. Which is just to say that this danger is not an attribute of non-nativeness.
I am glad you find my framework refreshing. I'm still learning as I read and observe and discuss and reflect. And yeah, totes agree that they aren't "invading" anything, they're just surviving. Yay for them!
This makes sense to me. The only way a plant is invasive to me, is if it is causing me a lot of work to manage it, regardless of where it came from. Blackberries of several suits have certainly fallen into that category. Still love them when they are not talking over the joint. 😄
Oh, and if you're interested in the Tao Orion interview, here's a transcript:
https://kollibri.substack.com/p/beyond-the-war-on-invasive-species
And here's a link to the audio and video:
https://radiofreesunroot.com/2020/05/23/ep-12-beyond-the-war-on-invasive-species-feat-tao-orion/
This is wonderful. Thank you so much. The religious mania explains so much. I've been trying for years to reach nativists, and am in a group to protect the plants who we and the animals so desperately need. I wrote this article to share:
https://keepingreallesbianfeminismsimple.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/help-defend-our-undocumented-immigrant-plants-and-animals-as-we-should-do-our-humans/
I love the idea of native plants changing themselves. Also, few humand talk about the recent spider immigrants, like one of my favorites from Australia, who does so well with our changing climate. In the last several years, I found a community who are natural anti-nativists, which are Birders, who go all over to photograph birds. They want birds to be happy and healthy, and, instead of being afraid when a rare bird from far away appears here, they are thrilled. I also notice that their beautiful photographs document which plants/trees birds prefer, for food, nesting, shelter, etc., and it's not what the nativists would predict. Raptors seem to particularly choose the hated Eucalyptus which I speculate is because of the height and openess of the branches, fledglings are less likely to be injured when learning to fly.
For the smaller birds, they love introduced berries from Firethorn/Pyracantha, Cotoneaster species, Hawthorn, Grapes, and the one plant I thought was only harmful, Ivy canariensis. Fennel is so important, but many parks cut them and other need plants and poison everything possible. (And they won't stop even though they know they are increasing chronic illness and cancer.
Anyway, learn from what the animals choose....
Yes the birders push back on the "invasive plant" narrative sometimes because they're out there, seeing what's going on. The endangered Willow Fly Catcher of the US Southwest has come to depend on the introduced Salt Cedars, so some birders have been opposing the policies that seek to eradicate those trees.
The religious component is real, and it's so ironic that it's embraced by secular folks who like to feel they're beyond all that. The belief in an unchanging, orderly world is totally Abrahamic in origin, but holds sway in much of the conservation world, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I really liked your article. I think you'd really appreciate the website Conservation Sense & Nonsense at https://milliontrees.me/ The woman who runs it also lives in the Bay Area and has been fighting the nativist derangement for years now. Maybe you already know her?
Thank you so much. Your work is so needed. I really like your idea about the religious aspect, which explains a lot. There is also a terror of nature that I see, even with friends, and about harmless animals as well as plants. (I'm not afraid of any animals like I used to be and it's wonderful to be able to hold them when helping them, from spiders to wasps to scorpions to snakes to bats, etc.) I was just thinking about how a tiny Rue plant started growing at the bottom of our driveway, right out of the concrete. I talked to her and watered her for months, and then she was gone. The next door neighbor killed her because he said she would spread everywhere. (We live in a concrete wasteland here with few plants.) He had no idea what species she was and probably guessed one of the many plants that bloom with tiny yellow flowers. I'm not likely to see another Rue again unless I go to a Botanical Gardens. The mania to kill what people don't even know is more of the problem and, yes, again like a religious fanaticism.
Thank you so much! Yes, the woman who runs https://milliontrees.me/ is a dear friend and is part of our Coalition to Defend East Bay Forests. I so appreciate her work.
That’s great that you know Ms. milliontrees. I have soooo much appreciation for her work. We correspond a bit on email. Her website has been the starting point for my explorations of these topics a few times because her research is so top notch. I also admire her willingness to go into the monster’s den, as in to attend meetings of the Invasive Species people. I’m not sure I’d have the stomach for it.
Our group used to attend meetings with the East Bay Regional Park District and we'd wait for hours to get 2 minutes to speak, and then the man in charge got the last word, ignoring everything we said about poisons and killing plants.
I'm increasingly chemically sensitive to I can't take more exposures to what people reek of in public places (laundry products are among the most toxic), which is like being in a tiny room full of chain smokers.
But yes, she continues so bravely and doing such good work. We need more like her!!!
The terror of nature / the wild is real, that’s for sure.
And wtf is up with this fear of “spreading” thing? It’s so prevalent and drives me nuts. It’s like people are afraid of anything thriving. They don’t even want their own gardens to do too well or they’re “out of control.” There’s some truly sick mindsets going on here.
I’m so sorry to hear about the Rue! Did your neighbor actually kill a plant on your property? I’ve known people to do that kind of thing, which is pretty amazing when you consider how sacred property is is in this culture. I had to stop a neighbor from taking out Dandelions from a place I lived once. To his credit, once I explained to him how many uses Dandelion has, and how I took advantage of those uses, he respected it. When he moved I sent him off with a bottle of homemade Dandelion wine, which he appreciated.
I SO agree. The little Rue, struggling so hard in the concrete was at the edge of our driveway and sidewalk, but really not his property. I'm still upset about it. And you're right about how sacred property is. He probably thought he was doing us a favor. But I let him know he wasn't.
That was so kind of you with the Dandelion Wine! I've never had any.
I so agree. One of my closest friends here is obsessed with controlling/taming nature. I've had to stop her from pulling down plants in our yard when she's talking. But she also is crazed with hating what she thought were Dandelions growing in dried up and otherwise dead yards in Richmond. She wants them all killed. I figured out they aren't even Dandelions, but probably Sow Thistle, based on her description. I explained how wonderful it was to see anything blooming in the summer here, and how they feed so many birds, insects, and even humans, and are an herb, like wonderful Dandelion, etc.
Yes, it's so bizarre and crazy really, hating nature, wanting to keep everything under "control," which leaves ugly lawns and horribly tortured plants. Another friend lives with her parents where it reminds me of old Berkeley with such a wildly beautiful yard with SO many plant species. It would drive the control maniacs nuts, but knowing what the species are, it's actually very beautifully planned, with so much for animals to eat and live in.
YES!! Thank you for this incredible thoughtful piece!!
I have the invasive struggle with plants, humans and animals— especially the ‘wild horse debate’ which isn’t a debate at all but a concerted effort to eradicate them despite overwhelming evidence they have been strategically and purposely maligned for the benefit of others financial gain. Now they change wild to feral in an effort to make the creatures dangerous in the uneducated among us- the easier to remove them. Invasive all because they ‘disappeared for a bit before coming back to North America? I think that’s just a large pile of bull.
Such a game is played when we detach ourselves from the Web and then think we can control it.
I also think invasiveness is rooted in religion which doesn’t allow for evolution. We know plants and animals evolve. We also know humans do. Entire ecological systems adapt and change based on a number of influences, ours being the worst. Darwin created the ‘survival of the fittest’ concept. Not for a bigger, stronger mentality but to witness how species work. Why do we loathe the evolution of humans oh right… because rules of Nature don’t apply to us.
We also poo-poo the idea of diversity in the workplace and life. It’s another word that’s just loaded. Be it diverse thought or genetic diversity… we become more able to withstand new challenges. Diversity is all around us in Nature and is exists for purpose.
It’s us humans that simply resist change when everything around us changes. We poison, exterminate and eradicate things in an effort to go back to some imaginary time when time stood still. Some era we want to remain in no matter who it harms. So draconian. Just ugh.
❤️
Yep, religious belief is really a big part of this topic, and of much of conservation discourse too. I'll be posting more on that specifically. The myth of an orderly and unchanging world is religious, and the science (and regular old observation) shows it ain't true.
PS. When we hear the words conservation and management we should also be suspicious because it typically benefits someone specific like a business and rarely if at all benefits ecosystems and the beings in them. Words as weapons.
So true.
I like where your posts are heading. ❤️
I hear what you're saying, and language -- and the thought processes behind it -- are so important.
However, as I survey the monocultures that privet hedge and callery pears are creating in Eastern NC, I can't help but worry about what birds are eating.
Neither privet nor callery support the caterpillars or other soft-bodied insects that feed baby birds.
Their fruits do not provide the same ratio of fats and proteins that birds have evolved to thrive on.
So this is the crux: the most common plants growing now do not support the biodiversity of this region. I cannot regard that as okay. I can't say that it's okay for specialty bees to go extinct because their plants can no longer grow.
To address xenophobia, a more apt example would be the hordes of white Europeans, including my ancestors, who became "invasive" on this continent, displacing and harming the biodiversity and cultural diversity of the native peoples here. Food ways, religious traditions, social customs, languages, histories, tool-making, tracking knowledge, -- much was lost through genocide against the First Peoples and forced assimilation.
So here we are. Should we just say "too bad" to the insects, birds, bees, soil bacteria, and animals that evolved in conjunction with sets of plants and who cannot consume the plants they did not evolve with?
Do we declare that monoculture of unsupported plants are just dandy lest we be accused of xenophobia?
I will say that the "native" plant advocates I know are the least xenophobic I know, and much more likely to be advocating for multiculturalism and merciful immigration policies.
Again, we must get to the root of the issue here. The label "invasive" is just blaming the messenger. The Privit and Callery Pear would not have been able to establish themselves without human disturbance. In order to address their current prevalence, one must look at what happened to make them at home there. What land use change? (like agriculture and resource extraction.) What animal extirpations? (like the eradication of beavers and predators.) Nature is responding to how we fucked thing up, and instead of looking at how we fucked things up and how we might unfuck them, we're villainizing certain plants, which is the same as villainizing Nature's response.
So the real crux is us and what we have done and how we don't want to own up to it.
To get to that crux, we need to look at what has been called "invasive land ethic." This includes not just the domineering activities like farming and mining and urbanization that led to introduced plants thriving, but to our attitudes about them and our approaches to dealing with them. For more on that, I'll point you to a 2018 paper, “Anishnaabe Aki: an indigenous perspective on the global threat of invasive species,” published in the peer-reviewed journal Sustainability Science. The lead author is indigenous and went to school for the formal education, then returned to his native home to look at these issues in the light of both perspectives.
Here's a quotation from it:
"Colonialism’s ongoing legacy and consequences are significant to Anishnaabe understandings of environmental change, though in ways that are more nuanced than a native and nonnative binary. In the broadest sense, settler colonialism in North America radically disrupted Anishnaabe connections to place, livelihoods, and social relations with non-humans (White 1991; Norrgard 2014). Our interview data provide insights into connections between settler colonialism and invasive species. We found that Anishnaabe tradition bearers are more concerned about an “invasive land ethic” than the threats of invasive species. Elements of this invasive land ethic include the imposition of Euro-American property ownership regimes, “command and control” forms of environmental management, and a worldview predicated on the separation of people from nature. Our interlocutors described the ways this invasive land ethic manifests in nonindigenous governmental and NGO approaches to invasive species management."
Here's that paper, which is not behind a paywall:
https://www.academia.edu/36568069/Anishnaabe_Aki_an_indigenous_perspective_on_the_global_threat_of_invasive_species