November 2004     

Invasive Species & Elections

By Jim Beers

Hide the women and kids! Two recent news releases have nearly sparked a panic here in the otherwise mellow Middle Atlantic States.

First, the State of New Jersey has found an "alien" species of catfish in the Delaware Raritan Canal. The flathead catfish, "which are normally found west of the Appalachian Mountains, and could devastate native catfish, sunfish, and some sturgeon populations." The New Jersey bureaucrats tell us that the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the flathead as its highest priority among invasive animal species." We are warned that, "Flatheads are known to consume large amounts of shad during spawning season." Wow!

This news flash from New Jersey was followed by an article in The Christian Science Monitor warning us that Maryland now has snakehead fish (called "Frankenfish" aka Boris Karlof) in the Potomac River and mute swans in the Chesapeake Bay. We are told that snakeheads will devastate Potomac "gamefish" (especially bass), and that mute swans are devastating Chesapeake Bay submergent (underwater) plantings. Where to begin?

Flathead catfish have existed for eons in North America. They come and go in watersheds for various reasons (climate changes, water quality, dams, well-intentioned citizens, etc.), and they have been in and west of the Appalachians for hundreds of years. A good friend did his Masters' thesis on flatheads in West Virginia, long ago. Last time I looked "native catfish and sunfish" were doing just fine in all those areas. Their impact on shad may be a limiting factor in New Jersey, but other fish also eat shad - and the sum of their impacts is what should concern us.

Regardless, if New Jersey is worried, then by all means, New Jersey should do what they feel is the right thing for New Jersey. What is this hokum about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "listing" priorities among "invasive animal species" that are little more than animals that have been here for eons, and now inhabit somewhere that they weren't thought to be a few years ago? That is a State concern, but this article implies that the federal bureaucrats are concerned, and willing to help by taking over. Indeed, they may be the only answer to; what was that question again?

The same things go for the snakehead and mute swans in Maryland. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to list snakeheads (from China) as Injurious Wildlife for decades. Therefore, they were imported with abandon. Now that they are being "released" by restaurant owners and aquarium owners into ponds (as goldfish have been for over a century), and have become established in the Potomac River, we are asked to conclude that the same agency that let them in is now the one best-suited to get rid of them. That is plain silly.

If snakeheads persist, and more are released by "sensitive and caring" children and others, as is sure to happen, we should look to the states where they occur to decide whether to spend state funds for controls (i.e. kill the "poor" things), or include them in the fishing regulations, and let fishermen enjoy catching, and eating them.

As for mute swans that have been here for over 200 years, and protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, lots of folks like to see them, and do not want them eradicated. The State of Maryland and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have supported the introduction (and truth be known, the drafting) of legislation to take away federal protection from mute swans because they are "non-native." Actually it is because they eat grasses the bureaucrats have been unable to get started in the Chesapeake, so they "should" be killed, if they interfere with bureaucrats' plans.

Remember, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service have approved the EPA permit to allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to routinely dump (for 20 years) vile, poisonous, and toxic sludge from the D.C. water system through a National Park into the Potomac River (right under the nose of the Maryland government that is so worried about snakeheads) onto the only nesting site of the Endangered Shortnose sturgeon in the Potomac! I guess the federal bureaucrats will do a better job of protecting New Jersey sturgeon from flathead catfish, though. Of course, if this same bunch of bureaucrats thinks it is best for our environment to also become mute swan-free (instead of managing their numbers and distribution), it must be for our own good, too.

New Jersey and Maryland, what a pair. They both either outlaw, or continually propose to outlaw traps, trap collections, and trapping. They both have growing bear populations that they cannot agree to manage by restricting numbers, and distributions of these harmful and dangerous animals to the least-populated portions of their states. They both have very restrictive gun laws that they are quick to enthusiastically enforce. They both strongly support federal legislation and federal agency activities that close down federal lands to use, access, and management.

They both favor wolf introductions, grizzly bear protection, and oppose mountain lion hunting in western states. They both favor closing down grazing, forest management, and harvest on public lands. They are both opposed to any offshore drilling, energy development, or nuclear power, anywhere. They are both home to large environmental and animal rights extremist organizations. They both have high taxes and repeatedly favor more federal taxation. They have large anti-hunting populations, and they (along with Massachusetts, Illinois, and California), are among the forefront of state and local schemes to limit, and then, eliminate not only "bloodsports," but also any animal use or ownership. Why is any of this important?

Because, when states like these claim the sky is falling because a catfish pops up where it didn't used to be, accept their claims of Armageddon with a grain of salt. When states like these imply or recommend that the federal government should send money, and play a role in the management of state resources, take it with another grain of salt, since they never saw a federal dollar they didn't like. When a state that would just as soon prohibit sport fishing tells you they are worried about "catfish and sunfish" or "gamefish, especially bass," just laugh.

When a state would kill mute swans simply because they interfere with state grass plantings, ask them why they think it's alright to force wolves on other people who love or use their pets, that the wolves eat, or need the livestock the wolves kill, or want to hunt the elk the wolves decimate? When a state that thinks nothing of seizing the Second Amendment rights of anyone living in, or traveling through their state, suggests new federal authority (over Invasive Species) is needed, ask them why new federal authority is good, but long established Constitutional rights and federal guarantee of those rights for over 200 years, can be dismissed by any state, at any time, for all residents or travelers?

When agencies can propose making a bird that has been here for over 200 years extinct, why should we believe them when they say wolves and grizzly bears that have been gone for half a century or more, are "necessary" today where people live, work, and recreate? When bureaucrats say they "must" revegetate the Chesapeake Bay through artificial planting, how is that different from public or private land managers and owners revegetating forests and grasslands to use them or protect them from fires?

No, the recommendations and "warnings" of these state "federal-wannabees" should be taken for what they are, and nothing more. Many state fish and wildlife agency personnel today go to work for federal resource agencies, either for promotions, or when they are fired. Many federal employees now go to pay-increase jobs in state agencies now that they can move retirement accounts so freely. Other state and federal employees go to environmental, animal rights, and conservation Non Government Organizations (NGOs) both here, and abroad, for pay increases, or when newly elected political parties may come after them. They are certainly free to, and encouraged to do these things in this great country, but there is a downside that we must be aware of.

Increasingly, these state and federal agency agencies, NGOs, and University professors that provide justifications and receive grants, form an entity unto themselves. They are identical to what President Eisenhower once referred to when he cautioned to "beware of a military/industrial complex." These groups form such a complex today. They recognize state governments, Presidents, the Congress, the U.S. system of government, and you and I as merely obstacles to be overcome, or pawns to be played, for their own benefit and the agendas of those who would harm us, and eliminate our rights.

As we ponder this recent spate of invasive species propaganda, (spurred mainly by the federal bureaucrat's belief that you can wring out promises from politicians for the most egregious stuff during an election, especially a close one) remember to swat this stuff down at every opportunity. We don't need to create any more federal environmental, or animal rights authority. Indeed, we should be discussing how to reduce dramatically what has been created in the past thirty years. Remind your state bureaucrats that they work for you, and that they should manage your state's environment, plants, and animals for you, not federal bureaucrats or federal mandates. Challenge these NGOs whenever they write, or claim things that you know will take away your rights, or harm your property, both private and public.

So, you can bring the women and kids back out now - go out and take a picture of a mute swan. Try some new snakehead recipe, while you're at it. And last but not least, try live minnows for flatheads, I caught two of them on minnows, years ago back in Illinois before they had a deer season, and all the mallards were full of corn and fat as well - whatever.

Jim Beers is a retired Refuge Manager, Special Agent, & Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service