“Some experts argue that our attitudes towards non-native species echo xenophobia. Should non-native species be considered less ecologically valuable than native species?”
Absolutely don’t agree!
– Shirley Baumgartner
If they are ousting native species, then they should go.
– Nancy Miles
I don’t know enough as an expert or even someone more learned about ecology, to speak from an informed enough place on this to say for sure. However, having said that caveat, from what I do know or have learned about invasive species, it seems to me this is not the same as humans. To be more direct, humans are the same species. Thus, whatever differences we have between us are so tiny as to be negligible. This part I do know somewhat about from genetics and DNA. So, I think that making this comparison doesn’t work and is not valid, scientifically. I will give one example that I know about. Australia has a distinct ecology and non-native species and thus the country has enacted laws to protect the land from invasive plants or animals, with good reason it seems to me. It comes down to science and not politically motivated opinions which fluctuate are unreliable in the long run.
– Sylvia Katharina Martindale, Perth
Realistically, how can someone compare human immigration to the introduction of species that could have seriously detrimental effects to the native ecosystems. This comparison sounds more like trying to start a fire than a sound, logical resource-based decision.
– Eric Crane
No similarities whatsoever. We are tired of somebody always reaching looking for trouble where none exists.
– Ellie McCaig
I disagree. Animals, plants and biotic elements introduced to native landscapes have damaging and displacing impacts for native wildlife and habitat, whereas it can easily be said that all non-Indigenous peoples in North America are not originally native to the land and that by working together and appreciating merits of diversity, there is enhanced meaningful strength and enhanced focus that comes with cultural diversity
– Noah Cole, Toronto
A larger question could read “how do we define value? Valuable to whom? I see a lot of ill-defined though trendy terms floating around
– Michael Battenberg
If they are ousting native species, then they should go.
– Nancy Miles
As someone with a specialized high skills major in environmental science, I find this question to be rather silly, and truly offensive. Invasive species are often frowned upon because they have detrimental effects on fragile ecosystems. Comparing hard-working immigrants searching for a better life, to invasive plant and animal species known for and capable of destroying ecosystems is grossly inappropriate. This deeply undermines the actual xenophobia that people face. Please reconsider this article.
– Summer Barber
Absolutely don’t agree!
– Shirley Baumgartner
As someone with a specialized high skills major in environmental science, I find this question to be rather silly, and truly offensive. Invasive species are often frowned upon because they have detrimental effects on fragile ecosystems. Comparing hard-working immigrants searching for a better life, to invasive plant and animal species known for and capable of destroying ecosystems is grossly inappropriate. This deeply undermines the actual xenophobia that people face. Please reconsider this article.
– Summer Barber
I disagree. Animals, plants and biotic elements introduced to native landscapes have damaging and displacing impacts for native wildlife and habitat, whereas it can easily be said that all non-Indigenous peoples in North America are not originally native to the land and that by working together and appreciating merits of diversity, there is enhanced meaningful strength and enhanced focus that comes with cultural diversity
– Noah Cole, Toronto
I don’t know enough as an expert or even someone more learned about ecology, to speak from an informed enough place on this to say for sure. However, having said that caveat, from what I do know or have learned about invasive species, it seems to me this is not the same as humans. To be more direct, humans are the same species. Thus, whatever differences we have between us are so tiny as to be negligible. This part I do know somewhat about from genetics and DNA. So, I think that making this comparison doesn’t work and is not valid, scientifically. I will give one example that I know about. Australia has a distinct ecology and non-native species and thus the country has enacted laws to protect the land from invasive plants or animals, with good reason it seems to me. It comes down to science and not politically motivated opinions which fluctuate are unreliable in the long run.
– Sylvia Katharina Martindale, Perth
Realistically, how can someone compare human immigration to the introduction of species that could have seriously detrimental effects to the native ecosystems. This comparison sounds more like trying to start a fire than a sound, logical resource-based decision.
– Eric Crane
No similarities whatsoever. We are tired of somebody always reaching looking for trouble where none exists.
– Ellie McCaig
A larger question could read “how do we define value? Valuable to whom? I see a lot of ill-defined though trendy terms floating around
– Michael Battenberg
I don’t think there the same at all. Immigrants contribute to the country while evasive species ruin the native ecosystems. That’s my opinion.
– @theshzottawa
A big difference is that immigration is typically voluntary, or at least a conscious decision. Whereas invasive species are brought in by human activity. The equivalent of a big hand grabbing you from your home that you developed yourself into (through evolution) to become a founder species in a new environment that may not be suited for your long term success (i.e. causing trophic cascade)
– @mikeybett
Interesting and thought provoking… although with agree with @theshzottawa
– @BurlingtonGreen (Burlington)
I disagree. What might seem similar on a surface level (non-native species vs xenophobia) is a nonsense comparison. That this link is even made is to me a reflection of just how disconnected people have become to the natural world.
The problem with projecting human-based value systems/concepts like racism and xenophobia is that the natural world is not operating on the same system as the human world – it has its own set of principles and rules. And in this system, the concept of human race is meaningless. In nature there are only species interacting in complex webs in integrate ecosystems, going about what they need to do to survive. Some humans have learned, through science, that the more species (biodiversity) in an ecosystem, the healthier and more resilient the ecosystem is.
Non-native species (alien) introductions are nuanced – their introduction can sometimes have a neutral, or even positive effect on biodiversity and ecosystems, so it is best not to paint all non-natives with a broad brush. Invasive species however cause harm and threaten biodiversity in a negative way. Negative value judgments towards non-native species usually come from biologists/naturalists who have first-hand experience seeing the impact of introduced species – these judgments are based on empirical, verifiable evidence in the field.
There is an enormous (gulf-sized) difference between direct observation from knowledgeable scientists using empiricism, and humans with prejudicial attitudes towards cultures not their own, which is based on their own belief systems. It is important to note too, that there is a connection between nature connectedness and empathy – those more connected to nature are more likely to have empathy and be less prejudiced towards their fellow man, but they are also the most likely to see the negative impacts of invasive species and therefore vilify them. In the natural world, invasive species decrease biodiversity. In the human world, immigrants increase human diversity – two entirely different outcomes, from two non-comparable concepts.
Moreover, invasive species are the direct result of human activities – they are like the ‘second wave’ of catastrophe, after habitat loss, disturbance, pollution, and other human activities. WE humans are all responsible for this, regardless of ethnic background, and we need to take responsibility for the damage we have caused on this planet.
Vicki Simkovic, London
In the Last Word article, the author seems to support that invaders and adapter species are moving towards homogeneity. I for one don’t like starlings, blackbirds, and sparrows taking over my bird feeder, and municipalities cutting down forests to make room for us.
Perhaps our mission statement should include “enhancement” as well as, again “protection”. As Pogo once said, (I am paraphrasing here) “The problem is us.”
Paul Rennick, long-time member
I can understand why, for some people, saying that non-native species “Do not belong here” and “Are taking up space which belongs to native species” seem to be politically incorrect. If we applied these statements to immigrant people, they would indeed be unacceptably racist and xenophobic.
However, when they are used to refer to invasive species, they are absolutely fair and appropriate. Immigrants are people who have made the deliberate choice to transport themselves from one country to another to escape violence or to have a better life for their family. They have an active and enthusiastic approach to life that has led them to overcome many practical difficulties involved in moving countries. They often bring with them an education, valuable life experience, and language skills. In general, they seek to work in co-operation with their new society and to work hard within it. They often succeed in making a valuable contribution.
Non-native plants and animals are usually transported by humans, either accidentally or on purpose. Their only goal is to procreate and spread. Without the checks and balances of competitors and other species which eat them, they spread widely, to the detriment of the native species which belong in their ecological niche. The Toronto ravines, for example, are dominated by Norway Maple, European Buckthorn, Dog-Strangling Vine, and Garlic Mustard, which are all rapidly growing, quickly spreading alien plants that have forced out native Maples, Trilliums and other species, without contributing anything in return.
Natural ecosystems are amazingly complicated, and hundreds of species have evolved to work together. They cannot rapidly adapt to cope with a new species. For example, if the forest floor is half Garlic Mustard and half native plants, deer will not recognize the Garlic Mustard as edible food, and only eat the native plants, so next year there will be even more Garlic Mustard and even less native plants. Native oaks support hundreds of other species. Non-native Norway Maples leaf out early, putting spring wildflowers into the shade, and then suck up vast amounts of water, creating a dark desert at their base.
This is why I say that non-native invasive species do not belong here are taking up space that belongs to native species. even if it makes me sound like a xenophobic racist to people who do not understand the issue or appreciate the differences between alien plants and immigrant people.
Dr. John Oyston, Toronto