Bennett Kirschner
4/2/2018
Hey Glennis,
I
enjoyed reading this article: it's well-written and thoroughly researched. As
you continue to explore this topic, though, I do recommend that you reflect on the
language surrounding invasive species. Its vocabulary limits us to only a few possible
understandings of the phenomenon and prevents us from gazing upon our own
practices with a more self-critical eye. First, the distinction made between
"native" and "invasive" – while certainly important at
times, since it has taken many centuries for native ecosystems to develop into
their present forms – does help to foster the sort of adversarial attitude that
your post implicitly endorses. Such an approach, though at times appropriate, forces
us to assume that non-native species are directly
responsible for all ecological changes with which they are associated, when, in
fact, their presence could be (and often is) a symptom of broader ecological changes in a given area.
It’s
important to remember that correlation does not always mean causation, and that
foreign species are not inherently worse than
their native counterparts. For decades, though, the invasion sciences have been
skirting around both of these essential truths – take the presence of the
American grey squirrel in Great Britain, for instance, whose spread has been
directly correlated with the declining population of the nationally iconic red
squirrel. The two species’ ecological functions are virtually identical and
yet, for decades, the country has declared war on the American grey squirrel on
scientific grounds that don’t go much further than its foreignness, and its
vicious campaign to spread and outcompete the red squirrel. Does this sort of
language sound familiar?
It’s
a language that’s at times rooted in idealizations of nature which are simply unrealistic, and, at others, in downright
xenophobia. Since the researches who work in the invasion sciences have a
vested interest in keeping their field relevant, the literature coming out of
the field tends to be imbued with a tone of urgency
and sometimes sheer desperation,
allowing very little room for constructive or critical discourse. Deeming
something an “invader” and using related, increasingly popular terms like “invasion
meltdown” makes us likely to think that we’re dealing with a natural disaster
of epic proportions, and prevents us from taking a closer look at the
underlying causes behind a non-native species' success in a given area.
Take
the example you provide, of crawfish in California's freshwater systems: you
note that their unprecedented spread is largely due to the serious changes that
freshwater systems in California are undergoing as a result of the most recent statewide
drought, which began in 2012. The causes of this drought have been all but
established in scientific literature – though droughts in California are
practically a fact of life and have been bound to occur at least once every few
decades for the last century, the current drought has been made 15-20% more
severe by altered air circulation patterns in the Pacific Ocean, which are caused
by the rapidly melting polar ice caps. It’s safe to assume, then, that this local problem is caused at least in part
by global climate shifts – crawfish
“arrived in Southern California about 100 years ago,” but only within the last
few years have been identified as a serious ecological threat.
In
most narratives of species invasions, we usually hear about two critical moments:
first, there’s the original introduction (in this case, the fishermen who
wanted to use the crawfish as bait); and then there’s what we might call the
catalyst, which is a change in the basic constitution of an ecosystem that opens
up an ecological niche into which the species can spread (in this example, the
drought). The two might happen simultaneously, or the catalyst might precede
the introduction – we frequently hear stories of species spreading like
wildfire immediately upon introduction because a niche was waiting for them as
soon as they showed up to the party. These examples, despite serving as the
posterchildren for the apocalyptic language of invasion ecology, are extremely
rare, and the story of crawfish in California is not one of them.
The
fishermen first introduced the crawfish “about 100 years ago,” and the
population “explosion” (this is another popular invasion ecology term)
coincided directly with the drought. As you note, the crawfish have been greatly
benefited by a drought as austere as this one, since they have little chance of
being “washed into the Pacific Ocean, where they are unable to survive With no
end in sight for the alarming rise in global temperatures, scientific studies
suggest that California droughts will continue to increase in severity and
frequency in the coming years, meaning that the conditions of freshwater
systems in California are likely to become even more hospitable for crawfish.
So
what are we to do? Does complete eradication seem appropriate in this case?
Does it not seem strange that public institutions are pouring hundreds of thousands
of dollars into fighting an ecological symptom
of broader, anthropogenic changes to the native habitat?
The
term “invader” brings up images of conquistadors slaughtering indigenous peoples
in South America, and never, say, tamer tales of European diasporas who arrived
in the United States after the end of the Civil War and saw a cultural
landscape transform in their favor. Granted, the crawfish resemble neither of these
examples perfectly: it is, like the conquistadors, preying upon the native
inhabitants of California freshwater habitats, but it also happens to be in the
right place at the right time.
By
talking about “invaders” and assuming that we must fight them in the name of
ecological justice (what we commonly refer to as “restoration”), we are imbuing
these creatures with a degree of intentional
agency that they do not possess and turning a blind eye to key elements of
our society’s broader ecological influence. California’s climate is changing,
and it will almost certainly continue to change – with it, so will the makeup
of species that are most suited to live there. Before committing ourselves to ecological
wars of attrition against non-native species, we need to take a step back and
recognize the underlying ethics – not to mention the sheer practicality – of
our decisions.
It’s
also worth noting that none of the papers you cite discusses the direct impacts
that changing freshwater run-off patterns are having on species native to
California waterways. The drought is helping the spread of crawfish, to be
sure, which itself presents a threat to certain native species, but this is
only an indirect effect, and it’s one which supports the premise that crawfish
must be eliminated to save the ecosystem. But a dramatic decline in freshwater
run-off is a serious ecological shift which, in and of itself, could make the habitat
less hospitable for populations that evolved over time with the annual Spring
runoff as part of their yearly cycle. I do not have an answer to this question,
but I do think it requires at least some amount of attention.
I
am not trying to undermine the central ethos of your piece, that the presence
of crawfish is detrimentally affecting native populations – this is almost certainly
true. It is, rather, the ethical inferences being made in response to these
findings which I find so dangerous. We are deflecting attention away from deeper,
more pressing issues like climate change, and instead focusing our attention on
the symptoms of those problems. The fact of the matter is that temperatures are
rising, climates are changing, the global economy exists, and as much as we might
try to hold onto nostalgic or romantic ideals of what a place ought to be like, it’s not, and never
was, possible to simply suspend nature in our image.
Thank
you, Glennis, for your post! It got me thinking!
-Bennett
SOURCES
Coates,
Peter. “Over Here: American Animals in Britain.” Invasive & Introduced
Plants &
Animals:
Human Perceptions, Attitudes and Approaches to Management. Rotherham,
I. and
Robert Lambert, ed. London: Earthscan, 2011. 39-54. Print.
Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
Species Fact Sheets: Procambarus clarkia. http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Procambarus_clarkii/en Accessed 4/1/2018
Gillis,
Justin. New York Times, 20 August, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html
Goode,
Erica. “Invasive Species Aren’t Always Unwanted.” NY Times, 29 February, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/science/invasive-species.html
Halper,
Evan. “Climate Scientists See Alarming New Threat to California.” LA Times, 5
December, 2017. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-climate-california-20171205-htmlstory.html.
Kim, Jed. “Dr Lee Kats
Discusses the Invasive Red Swamp Crayfish.” 89.3 KP, January 9, 2015. https://seaver.pepperdine.edu/news/2015/01/dr-lee-kats-discusses-invasive-red-swamp-crayfish-893-kpcc/ Accessed 4/1/2018.
Larson,
Brendon. Metaphors for Environmental Sustainability: Redefining Our
Relationship
With
Nature. New Haven Conn.: Yale UP, 2011. Print.
Sagoff,
Mark. “Do Non-Native Species Threaten the Natural Environment?” Journal
of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, No. 18 (2005): 215-236. Print.
Sagoff,
Mark. “Who Is The Invader? Alien Species, Property Rights, and the Police
Power.”
Social Philosophy and Policy, No. 26. (2009a): 26-52. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment