We are bad at dealing with invasive species

Even though I have known about the problems with invasive species since I took an environmental science class in high school, I hadn’t stopped to consider that our garden could spell disaster for local ecosystems.

Invasive species are organisms brought to a new environment and adapt to it so well that in doing so they eat local species’ food or mess up their habitats causing long term, large scale disruption.

One of the most common guidelines issued to people to help address the issue of invasive plant species is to not buy and plant invasive species. The advice is not only disproportionate to the magnitude of the problem, it lays the onus on people to seek out information that’s not easily accessible, and ditch highly coveted beautiful plants.

What makes the whole situation worse is the drastic approach to dealing with the problem. Measures have included the introduction of viruses, chemicals, or other predator species. At times, forest officials take to chopping down invasive trees on vast swathes of land.

Take the case of the nutria, an otter-like rodent from South America, was brought to North America with hopes of launching a fur industry. When ranchers failed, they released the nutria into the wild. They flourished on the wetland grasses and destroyed nesting sites for local fauna.

The state launched a large-scale effort with hunters to eradicate 8500 nutria. It took them two years of wading into the marsh and shooting creatures who were doing nothing but living.

Conservationists advise against such drastic measures. Rather they suggest that we take a long term approach that focuses on restoring small sections of a disturbed habitat.

There’s a huge disconnect between the messaging around invasive species and the measures to manage them. And neither seem proportionate or well considered.