November 2004     

Invasive species or pervasive fraud?

By Jan Michael Jacobson

What is an "invasive" species, and who decides what is "invasive?" Is this just the illegitimate pseudo-academic offspring of "endangered" species, fathered by environmentalism, out of academia? Could this whole thing be just more make-work for academia and their enablers, the agencies?

Let's begin in Key West Florida, at the Free Market Environmentalism Conference, sponsored by the James Madison Institute. I spoke at this Conference, and showed videotapes illustrating the consequences of management decisions on various Everglades habitats.

The Chairman of the Department of Biology at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) was in the audience, liked what he heard, and invited me to lead a faculty seminar. I accepted, and a colleague, Dr. Earl R. Rich and I traveled to FAU for the seminar.

Among the questions I raised was the following:

Is it ethical for the academic world to continue producing students whose only likely role in society will be in regulation-related jobs? What of the fact that we are in a global economy, and capital flows away from regulation and taxation, thus guaranteeing a reduction in the number of jobs for biology majors in the future?

Not one single faculty member said anything in response to either of these topics. I then noted that if the members of the Grove of the Academe didn't prune the academic forest, eventually, an enraged public and legislature would. Again, not a single response - no one was interested in that topic either.

On the drive back, I asked Dr. Rich why no faculty member had responded to the questions I had posed them, because I felt they were important to the future of the American academic community. He smiled, and said he agreed with me. "Then why no responses?" I asked again.

He laughed, and said: "You were asking them to reduce the number of faculty positions!"

I further suggested that as professional academics, they had an obligation to their institution, their students, and to the community which paid for it all. Why didn't they reduce the size of their department by attrition and judicious non-renewal of contracts, rather than waiting for enraged parents, students, and legislators to assume the professional obligations which they were unwilling to fulfill?

His answer, "They will hold onto their positions to the last paycheck." With that behavior, I realized the depth of devolution of the American academic world. They were little better than any union, or government employee. They knew their position was nothing more than "make-work" for academics. Worse yet, they were not ashamed in the least.

Theirs was the same attitude of any other welfare recipient - "Gimme my check!"

What has this to do with "Invasive Species programs?" Much, it has all-too-much to do with this dangerous and expensive government program.

Let's look at a bit of history. There was a Wild Cotton plant which lived in south Florida, and was the subject of an eradication program during the Great Depression. The government paid for people to walk the entire Florida Keys and the Everglades pulling out all of these plants.

In some of the old history books, there are mentions of a widely-held belief in the small towns, such as Flamingo, that the people working on the program were saving seeds and planting them, to assure work the next few years.

Much earlier, Florida was convinced by the cattlemen that deer were carrying ticks which spread diseases which were killing cattle. So, hunters were hired ("Gimme my check!"), and the deer were shot out of areas of Florida. Never mind, that all wild mammals can carry ticks. And somehow, some deer survived, too. But, lots of checks were given out.

Present-day faculty and enviro-socialist groups are a bit more sophisticated. They arrogate unto themselves the power to define what is an "invasive" species. Then, empowered with your tax dollars, they create courses about "invasive species," and create bureaucracies to putatively eradicate or control the species which they dubbed "invasive."

If you think they will ever finish the control or eradication of "invasive" species, please remember the faculty hanging on to the supernumerary teaching positions at FAU to the very last check. "Gimme my check!"

As for those in the field actually doing the hard labor of species eradication - remember the Wild Cotton employees, and the seeds they saved and planted? "Gimme my check!"

Ladies and gentlemen, it would appear that we have a population irruption of "Gimme" pigs. Only this time, we are not dealing with so called welfare queens. Now, we are faced with a grunting, snorting herd of academic and agency "gimme" pigs all with their snouts in the tax dollar trough.

Hog season, any one?

Onward to the basic premise of the "invasive" species. What is an invasive species? Whatever the academics and agency persons want them to be.

In 1954, a bird from Africa flew into the United States. It was known to have flown the Atlantic on its own wings, landed in South America in the 1930's, and twenty years later, was featured in a whole article in National Geographic magazine.

Should we have eradicated the Cattle Egret? Should we do it now? Can't you hear it now - "All Audubon members will report to their nearest National Guard armory, where they will be issued a combat shotgun and 100 rounds of birdshot, before starting their annual bird count."

Why is the Cattle Egret welcomed, and the Marine Toad reviled? No, it's not because one is white and the other brown, Rev. Jackson.

The mere acceptance of the "invasive" species concept opens a Pandora's Box of abuses; Arbitrary and capricious abuses, and expensive ones, at that.

Yes, I know that one of the Clinton administration's less-than-brilliant decisions was to support the "invasive species" crowd via Executive Order. But, the only botanical product allegedly widely recognized by that administration was cocaine. And, that's a pervasive botanical product, not an invasive one.

The ultimate assinity of the "invasive" species idea is the hubris-handicapped notion that some academic is so wise and insightful as to be able to determine what would have moved into an area "naturally." If they could see the future, a bit of day trading, they would be on a beach in Tahiti.

Another core faulty premise of the entire "invasive species" program is that the world must be kept in some arbitrarily-defined point of stability. "Invasive species" are claimed to upset that arbitrarily-defined stability. In the world of real biologists, the idea of ecological stability (ecosystem stasis) is an active joke.

This concept of "invasive" species being such a grave danger as to justify allowing enormous power into the hands of academics and agency-persons, is a clear and present danger to ecology, economy, and the Constitution.

This is an election year. May I suggest that you refuse to vote for any office-seeker who will support the Invasive Species program in any way - do it for the children.

Not to mention doing it for fiscal responsibility, and preservation of the Constitution.