The only thing ugly about any debate is believing that one idea is the only true idea, there are too many facets to anything to permit such myopia.
Closed minds do not open doors.
I'm sure those pesky Oaks can just find another area to become endemic to, we've got enough varieties already. Phrasing.
Didn't a couple Canadians write a spiffy little ditty about just such a dilemma, sans infestation?
I still haven't met anyone who can successfully argue that the GSOB has done anything except decimate large swaths of already compromised ecosystem.
I regret that you have interpreted that as some sort of challenge; again, context.
There is no silk pajama to be won.
Studies do exist however that indicate how this Arizona native (as in: from Arizona) travelled as far and as fast as it did.
The one (study; not native) released by the USFS and CDFA two years ago comes to mind.
My fellow stupid non-native natives keep carrying the aforementioned non-native's in on their firewood.
Reports suggest over 800 non-native insect species were intercepted in this manner.
By the way, reports indicate that is up to four species of Oak, not three.
Permaculturalists also appear a seemingly interesting breed though.
You can anticipate what a chicken or goat might try to eat if it runs out of food, but not a beetle.
It could simply be a case of mind over matter: if you don't mind, it really doesn't matter.
Until it becomes your problem.
But enough about instinctual survival and inevitable adaptability in the absence of natural predators.
More instead about the native species topic, since that was after all at the heart of my cheerful diatribe.
There are so many examples of native vs. non-native and invasive vs. non-invasive interaction at any given time that I honestly must admit it seems like hubris at minimum to ignore their existence.
By the way, native does not mean a plant type restrictively. Thought maybe I should throw that out by now.
I can think of another truly invasive but possibly native occurrence that is affecting the entire world currently, that our particular invasive species was very slow at paying attention to.
Maybe that has something to do with the hyper-reactivity being displayed in these last ill-informed and ill-prepared generations.
We do tend to be a knee-jerk reaction sort of species. It is a bit of a kick really.
Mind over matter.
I think the fair and basic idea of the term native could at one time back in the good ol' days have been construed as 'before you got there'.
Apparently the good ol' days was sometime circa 1986.
It seemed presumable that if you did not carry it in, it was already there (this seemed especially trustworthy in the more rugged and unspoiled areas, not so much downtown, where that diaper on the curb should NOT be but definitely is native).
That was what we were trying to do in places like Santa Cruz, and Monterey, where an arguably non-native and invasive species...mankind...had done a lot of damage in a short time and threatened the wellbeing of an ecosystem that was already there and harming no one.
We weren't trying to make a statement or fight a cause. We were just trying to make it like it was before our species got there and effed it up.
The habitat was healthy and diverse before the dozers and graders showed up.
That was the native flora that was found on site when they arrived.
After they finished their invasive service building their non-native bridge or asphalt onramp, they left it mostly bare subsoil churned up through the remaining topsoil and some weeds beginning to show if we were lucky; but usually a lot of clay with six to twelve inch deep ruts, brackish water, and erosion.
That is how we found it, that is how it was before we got there.
Native?
Repairing the habitat meant using native plants, native rocks, native earth, native water, whatever you can use onsite to erase the hate we commit, because hate really is the only way you can define such behavior.
But we really weren't on a quest to be holistic or symbiotic.
Restoration projects funded by the state require use of native and available resources, but probably because they are cheap or free not because of some idealogical position.
Where else were we supposed to get the materials to do the job?
What is more native than what is already native?
Of course there were natives prior to the last natives.
I'm sure the neo-natives would have considered them...native.
Rather than focus on who was where first, perhaps consider instead what impact they had on their system.
So what was it like before you got there?
Kudzu and antifreeze? Guess that is your native species.
Hope your local native wildlife knows better than to drink that sweet tasting stuff.
And hopefully your favorite native trees can hold up under the weight of The Beanstalk, Jack.
Does that mean kudzu and antifreeze are evil or useless? Of course not.
In most cases they did not put themselves there.
What about when we take what may have been considered a native species and selectively breed it until it no longer resembles what it was.
Is it still considered a native, and safe to reintroduce?
If it is essentially a native species (or at least half of one) would that make the discussion of reintroduction a moot point?
This is more of a Sandpeople vs. Jawa's sort of consideration however, and I admit it clearly only applies to special circumstances.
I think people may use native in place of the term low impact, because for one thing a lot of people are simple and think in simple terms.
Somehow that idea seems to have become invasive (I know, ironic isn't it) and just like pork and eggs and coffee and red wine and butter, we can't practice moderation, it has to be all or nothing.
Essentially you might say we can't be trusted with ourselves.
We are generally a herd mammal, and tend to reflect herd mentality.
If you heard enough people say native, then you would probably start saying it too.
If you need proof of this social phenomena, spend a year as an outsider in any small town.
If you really want to give a pro-native species arguer a run for their money, ask them how they feel about rodents and roaches in their home.
A lot of self proclaimed really progressive and alternative people fail this one so don't feel bad if I made you flinch.
One could additionally argue, should they find themselves sufficiently motivated, that it was a non-native species called a Federal Government that allowed an invasive species called a Society to compromise an entire environment for a smooth place to pasture a non-native AND invasive species known as an automobile.
But that would most certainly be some acrobatic phrasing.
