I don't think the question is whether invasives are a problem. The criticisms the article raises are rather easily refuted. Sure, invasives are a problem for industry or national security (i.e. our species), and if we are generous perhaps for the integrity of some ecological system as we understand it. But who is to judge what is "good for the ecology"? Or is it more often just some sentimental nostalgia? My point is that whether we claim the motivation to control invasives is selfless preservationism or reduce it to economic loss or other self-interest, it is ultimately anthropocentric, because our management actions rely on our own limited data and understanding of ecology and are given direction by our own limited judgments about what is best for some natural system. The truth is, nature will adjust with or without us, and life will go on. Perhaps our efforts would be better spent figuring out how to better conduct our civilization than on making ridiculously futile managerial adjustments. The real question to my mind is whether we should continue on such a path knowing we so often make more of a mess by trying to set things straight. Reading the authors' justification for invasive management reminded me of Bush the administration rallying support for the Iraq war.. What we already know is scary, so imagine how terrifying the uknown unknowns might be! When will we learn to just leave things alone?
Miles On Oct 28, 2013 11:54 AM, "lisa jones" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > A quick and interesting editorial piece from Richardson & Ricciardi > "Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field guide" in Diversity and > Distributions (2013, 19: 1461-1467). > > A link to the article can be found here on the Canadian Aquatic Invasive > Species Network (CAISN) website (listed near the bottom of the page): > http://www.caisn.ca/en/publications > > I am sure there will be a response from those who see no value in invasion > science but as one reviewer pointed out "when invasions are driven by us > (ballast waters, trade, aquaculture, you > name it) and overcome wide ecological barriers... well, I would be very > careful in saying that there is no problem." > > Lisa > > > > >
