Reconsidering the language and ideas of ‘invasive’ species

By Cory Mohn, Park Ranger, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area

November 20, 2021

For a long time now, conservationists working to restore habitats and track the spread of new species have made use of specific language. This language was often harsh, militaristic, and unflattering; all designed to provoke a strong response from people to get them to take action. Such tactics worked and many people have taken up the cause of restoring and protecting our habitats by removing “invasive” species. However, in recent decades and especially in the last few years, it has become apparent that this has come with a cost. A discussion of the ethics of how we talk about these issues is now taking place. This article seeks to provide a summary of these issues and how they relate to our work within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, including some things that I have observed first hand. (Note: I use species as a general term but you can replace it with plant/animal/etc.)

Ranger Cory gives an interpretive talk before a group of Surly Gives A Damn volunteers restore habitat at Crosby Farm Regional Park. Copyright National Park Service.

Demonizing the Innocent

When we discuss the details of habitat restoration and new species spread, the language we choose tends to add meaning beyond the facts. We use terms like ‘invasive’, ‘aggressive’, and ‘crowding’ in order to make a point that a certain species being in our habitats is bad. But, these words don’t describe how the species arrived in the habitat or why they are causing an issue. People end up thinking the species is universally bad and start to attack it regardless of the situation. All species are simply trying to live wherever they find themselves. Instead of a species being bad, the problem is usually a matter of the controls that would have kept the species in check not being present. Then we have words like eradicate, which implies that there is an end to our work. When people realize that most of the species we go after are never going to be completely removed they get angry at the plants and the people who brought them here. Truthfully, our work is rarely to eradicate anything, but instead we seek to build the processes and the network of people that allows us to monitor and improve our ecosystems.

A worse consequence of these language choices occurs when the species is given a name that is also associated with a group of people. An example of this is with the descriptor "Asian Carp." By associating the word "Asian" with an "invasive" species it associates both the fish and the word "Asian" with foreigners, outsiders, and something bad and too aggressive. These word choices cause harm and have real consequences for Asian Americans. Last year, there was more than a 150% increase in hateful attacks on Asian Americans. Public spaces and parks are a primary location where these types of violent crimes occur. And in yet another high profile case, Olympic Medalist Suni Lee was the victim of an attack in Los Angeles. Acknowledging when the words we have used have caused harm and changing the way that we talk about these species in the future will help us to stop inadvertently causing those negative associations in the minds of program participants and volunteers. In this case, I can mention that silver carp are the fish that jump high out of the water, as silver carp is the species' actual name.

Sumac growing at Grey Cloud Dunes SNA. Copyright National Park Service / Cory Mohn.

Oversimplification

I have already touched on this but it’s worth going over a bit more. Often we simplify the discussion of the species that we are having issues with for the sake of communicating with the general public. We have limited time to get the point across and the justifications tend to be complicated. Each time we adjust our discussion to be more effective for more people we shave off more and more of the supporting facts. Eventually we get to a point where most people get on board with the message, but then they don’t know the limits of how the message should apply. This is an unavoidable balancing act, but we should remain aware of the key points so that when people walk away they have enough of the greater context that they aren’t going to automatically label the species as bad. An example in our park is sumac. We remove it in certain prairies because the fires that would have kept it in check no longer take place. We don’t remove it because it is bad, but rather because we need to be the occasional fire to keep the prairie healthy. Outside of that specific situation, sumac belongs here in our park.

Non-native versus native

What does it mean to be a native species? This is actually a memorial designation that indicates that the species was present the very first time people arrived in an area. The scientific concept that defines this is sometimes referred to as “the frozen moment” and in the vicinity of the Upper Mississippi this moment occurred between 12,000 and 15,000 years ago. The idea is that as people spread across the planet, the species they encountered were meant to be where they were found. Thus, the spread of people was like a glacier that froze everything in place. I want to be clear that this anthropocentric way of viewing species is a product of western scientific thinking. Even though I mentioned the moment we think the first Indigenous people arrived here, this is a historical reconstruction done by western scientific study looking back and does not reflect Indigenous knowledge or thinking. In fact, it is often Indigenous thinking countering the dominant western scientific perspective that brings about or leads the discussions such as this one concerning the language used around invasive species.

So now that you know how a species gets labeled native, you probably understand that this says more about us than the species itself. There may be some limited historical use for the designation, but it does not describe any of the physical characteristics of a species or even how it fits into the habitat today. Most crucially, it fails to recognize the ability for a species to migrate. All species migrate to some extent as they seek out the conditions they are adapted to. Additionally, people have caused some species to move far beyond where they would have gone on their own, but that alone isn’t a problem. It’s only when that species disrupts the healthy balance of an ecosystem that it becomes an issue.

In recent years, with the spread of identification apps on our phones, I have noticed more people using a specie’s native status as a litmus test. If it’s native it gets to stay, otherwise it must go. I can understand the appeal of this as it is easy to do and feels like an informed decision. But is it really informed or even ethical? There are some species that have been introduced to the US that are not native, but in their native range they are now endangered. If we were to simply remove the species because it wasn’t native we could inadvertently help push it towards global extinction. There are also plenty of species that survive here without causing harm and some that even benefit the local ecosystem. If no harm is being done we should respect their right to live. We really should seek an understanding of a species beyond it’s native status before we decide to remove it if for no other reason than to make sure that the way we remove it is actually proper.

A volunteer group from Navitaire removed crown vetch at Mill Ruins Park, an ongoing project. Copyright National Park Service.

How should we proceed?

With regards to the language we use, we need to be sure that we are using terms that actually describe the situation. The phrase “invasive species” should be retired because it suggests a certain maliciousness or conscious effort to do bad things, a trait that very few species actually possess. We must also make a distinction between talking about a species in general versus a specific occurrence of a species within a particular habitat. A better way to refer to a species is to call it a “potentially problematic species” when discussing the species in general terms, making sure to only refer to it as a “problematic species” when actually describing a specific situation where said species actually causes a problem. Some prefer to use the term “displaced species” to acknowledge the role people played in creating the situation.

Perhaps harder to adjust is the way we think about managing potentially problematic species. It is easy to point at something and say we need to remove it, but hard to describe the balanced ecosystem we aim to produce. As visual and tactile creatures, we respond best to what’s in front of us. So we need to point out the things in the habitats we work on and describe what will happen without our intervention, but when we go into a habitat to remove something we should put it in terms of the natural process we are emulating with our actions. We should also take the time to share the history that brought the species to the habitat in the first place so that we can honor the connections we have with them and the responsibility we have for taking care of what we have sown. Finally, know that the job of habitat restoration never really ends. We must check up on our restoration work to make sure the habitats remain healthy and to continue to emulate the processes they need. Try not to get upset that this work must continue and instead use it as an opportunity to deepen your relationship with the environment.

The sun rising on the hillside at Mill Ruins Park in downtown Minneapolis. Copyright National Park Service / Cory Mohn.

I want to conclude by emphasizing that this is not a call to change what we are doing, but rather to adjust how we talk and speak about it. My Dakota counterparts at the Lower Phalen Creek Project shared with me a story about how they realized the standard habitat restoration language was affecting them negatively and that they changed it to be true to themselves and to have better relationships with their plant relatives. I think we could benefit from doing the same thing as we work in our park. We do some very good and important work, but we don’t want to become something we aren’t in the process. If we change our language we might even become more welcoming to those who have been uncomfortable with our previous ways of talking and thinking. Everyone should feel comfortable doing the hands-on work that brings us closer to the natural resources of our park!

Sources:

Inglis, M.I. Wildlife Ethics and Practice: Why We Need to Change the Way We Talk About ‘Invasive Species’. J Agric Environ Ethics 33, 299–313 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-020-09825-0

Colautti, R.I. and MacIsaac, H.J. (2004), A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species. Diversity and Distributions, 10: 135-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00061.x

“New (Old) Ways of Knowing.” Lower Phalen Creek Project, 10 February 2022, www.lowerphalencreek.org/lpcp-blog/2022/2/7/what-is-indigenous-science.