IMHO, they are attacking a "straw man." I haven't seen many scientists, managers, policy-makers etc. getting all worked up about non-indigenous species who integrate well into the environment, get a green card, pay their taxes etc. The ones that are being attacked and for which they are spending lots of money are the truly invasive ones that cause ecological and economic damage - eating up everything in sight, outcompeting native species for food, space etc. - and generally taking over - affecting the environment in negative ways.
> An essay published in the June 8 issue of Nature is causing something of a > stir. Eighteen ecologists who signed the essay, titled "Don't judge > species on their origins," "argue that conservationists should assess > organisms based on their impact on the local environment, rather than > simply whether they're native," as described in a recent Scientific > American podcast. > > In the essay, Mark Davis from Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota and > colleagues argue that adherence to the idea of non-natives as "the enemy" > is more a reflection of "prejudice rather than solid science," wrote > Brandon Keim in a Wired Science article. As the authors wrote, the > "preoccupation with the native-alien dichotomy" among scientists, land > managers and policy-makers is prohibitive to dynamic and pragmatic > conservation and species management in a 21st century planet that is > forever altered by climate change, land-use changes and other > anthropogenic influences. As a result of this misguided preoccupation, > claim the authors, time and resources are unnecessarily spent attempting > to eradicate introduced species that actually turn out to be a boon to the > environment; the authors cite the non-native tamarisk tree in the western > U.S. as an example of this... > > Read more and comment at > http://www.esa.org/esablog/ecologist-2/speaking-of-species-and-their-origins/ >
