A new article in the Washington Post emphasizes that tough choices are ahead when it comes to managing destructive invasive species.  As I have mentioned in many previous blogs, our government is finally getting serious about invasive species prevention and control, a growing problem that is costing this country billions of dollars annually to combat.  For example, the U.S. Government is spending $55 million in efforts to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. It will likely spend millions more in its attempt to eradicate or control Burmese pythons and other large constrictors in Everglades National Park. 

Nationwide, invasive species are causing an estimated $120 billion dollars of environmental damage annually.  Sam Hamilton, current director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, called invasive species “probably the single greatest threat in our country to our native wildlife.” 

Why then, do radical animal rights groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States and their allies continue to fight efforts to control populations of feral cats, pythons, mute swans, nutria, feral horses, cattle  and goats, and other invasive species nation-wide?  Its either invasive species or our native wildlife and their habitats. We can’t have both.  In addition, the deleterious effects of invasive animals, when combined with other environmental stressors, including pollution, climate change, and habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation, will surely push many native species over the brink.   

The 40th anniversary of Earth Day is approaching. Is there a better time to redouble our efforts to control or eradicate selected existing exotics, and most importantly, prevent any further introductions from occurring? Some invasive species must be managed intensively; otherwise, we will lose the conservation battle. Comments welcome.

Michael Hutchins Animal rights organizations, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, invasive species, wildlife conservation