Greetings All

Several have directly or indirectly said the following

But please everyone keep in mind that when non-native species invade a
habitat, they eliminate the original diversity of plant and animal life. The new
crop of invasive plants may add habitat for some species, but they certainly
take away habitat for others.Original animals and birds are squeezed out. Others
move in that can adapt to the change. Many of those are other non-native
species.

I say, Prove It.

I know of two instances wherein TNC bought property, removed the cattle, only
to have the rare plant for which the property was purchased disappear. The
cattle had to be brought back. I don't think non-natives always decrease
diversity. I think sometimes they increase it. If one was to remove all willow and
replace it with all Russian Olive, then yes, diversity would suffer greatly. But
in highly disturbed habitats my experience has been that non-natives often
have higher diversity. Ask the Fox Sparrows, House Finches, and Greater Scaup
nearby.

Remember, I am not talking about installing or even leaving non-native
species at all places. But we're taking an axe to them at a number of places that
don't even vaguely resemble any antecedent habitat.

And the waterfowl along the Columbia R have clearly benefitted hugely from
Eurasian Milfoil. Whatever was there before certainly did not attract anywhere
close to this number of birds. I can't say what its effects on fish are, but
for birds, this non-native has been exceptionally beneficial.

And of course, ivy sucks. As I said, complicated. We could spend all this
country's resources and not eradicate non-natives. Probably not eliminate one
major species of suc. We need to pick our battles and think about where they
might be actually of use.

Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
Everett WA