Aquatic Invasive Species

In his piece, “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology,” Brendon Larson describes the increased trend toward using militaristic language in literature about non-indigenous nuisance species.  He explains that dramatic metaphors are often used in an attempt to foster a sense of urgency about the non-native species, and rally efforts to control their spread.  He then lists the problems with this approach, specifically the fact that looking at invasion biology as if it were a war is a misguided point of view that can lead to false impressions, unwarranted labeling of species as “enemies”, and loss of scientific credibility.  He concludes by suggesting alternative metaphors that would raise awareness without the negative effects, such as likening invasive species to illnesses, which, as such, need to be treated – not “killed”.

Examples of such militaristic language are virtually ubiquitous in invasive species literature.  One such instance can be seen in a previous post on this blog, “Welcome to Weevil!” (Marks 2010).  The author writes, “Water hyacinth… causes many problems in the places where it invades… In order to combat this dangerous plant, weevils were introduced into Lake Victoria…” (Marks 2010). This employs a few different military themes.  First, although certainly not unique to this post, the very term “invasive species” has a militant tone, suggesting a conscious strike into an enemy territory.  The use of “dangerous” later in the quote serves to emphasize this theme.  Most notably, the verb “to combat” cements the militaristic nature of the post, suggesting a tactical battle between ecologists and water hyacinth.  Similar examples can be seen throughout numerous other pieces of literature in this field as well.

It would be hard to argue that there is no truth to Larson’s argument.  There certainly are plenty of military metaphors to be found in the literature of invasion biology, and it cannot be denied that the light in which something is presented influences how the audience receives it.  Particularly, it is essential that authors of scientific literature maintain their credibility if they wish to be taken seriously, and it is difficult to be entirely credible while using hyperbole and exaggerated metaphors.  However, it seems that in his criticism of others’ sensationalism, Larson gets somewhat sensationalistic himself.  At one point he goes so far as to assert that overly military language will raise fears of a “terrorist attack on the environment [with invasive species]” (Larson 2005), thus wasting scarce conservation funds on precautions for a near impossibility.  It seems highly unlikely that anyone is too worried about terrorists smuggling invasive species into the country.  Later in the article, he claims that “wars against invasive species indirectly contribute to veritable ones” (Larson 2005), an assertion that comes across as an exaggeration if not an outright absurdity.

As a whole, the article raises some important points, most of which should not be discounted.  Larson gets somewhat carried away in his effort to show the importance of demilitarizing invasion biology, but the essentials of his argument still ring true.  Scientists need to retain their credibility, and need to ensure that their literature will evoke positive conservation efforts, not destructive militaristic tendencies.

Larson, BMH. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.

Marks, Jonathan. Welcome to Weevils! (SW2). WordPress Blog. http://sites.duke.edu/aquaticinvasives/2010/01/28/welcome-to-weevil/

Kevin Shia

According to Larson, militaristic metaphors are detrimental towards the arguments against invasive species from spreading. Lawson claims this is based on three reasons, which are they bring about an inaccurate perception of invasive species, the research papers that use militaristic phrases lose credibility in their work, and they reinforce militaristic patters, which are not productive towards conversation. Lawson states that instead of using militaristic metaphors, writers should use metaphors that are relevant to the origins of the species.

In Walker’s review about the spread of zebra mussels, in the first line, he states that “Scienctists battle an invasion of zebra mussels” and in the middle of the article with, “these homesteaders are infiltrating and fouling everything… engineers have begun fighting back with a range of toxic agents” (Walker 1991). There are already two words that relate to militaristic rhetoric, which are “battle,” and “invasion.” The context of the first quote is that zebra mussels already spreading at an alarming rate and scientists are trying to figure out a way to alleviate this problem. The second quote explains using poisons to kill the zebra mussels, but the use of “infiltrating” and “toxic agents” make it appear that we are fighting a war to destroy the zebra mussels.

In a way, I agree with Larson’s argument. When militaristic rhetoric is used, it immediately shows bias towards the topic being discussed. Also, the constant use of this rhetoric, makes it seem less and less reliable, eventually making all militaristic rhetoric detrimental to the argument trying to be portrayed. It is possible that the zebra mussels are not an immediate problem, but this article definitely makes it seem that way. Also, this makes it seem that if we “wage a war” against the zebra mussels, we will succeed, but this is very improbable due to the zebra mussels’ adaptability. But in a way, militaristic rhetoric is effective in getting the public attention to a serious issue at hand. It also calls for a quick action for invasive species that are causing extensive damage to habitats and the economy.

The issue that I have is that he does not have complete support of his argument. Even though he discusses the militaristic rhetoric in literature, he doesn’t support them with any statistical data to show if there is an actual influence on the public.

Larson, Brendon MH. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. (2005). Front Ecol      Environ 3(9), 495-500.

Walker, Tim. Dreissena Disaster (1991). Science News 139(18), 282.

Larson argues than in an attempt to dramatize invasive species and better illustrate the problem to the public, many scientists and writers have begun to use what he calls a militaristic pattern of thought. He says that this thought process is counterproductive for conservation because it leads to an inaccurate view of invasive species and the problems they cause as well as social misunderstanding and loss of credibility. He believes that other alternative phrasing and metaphors will create a better environment for practical management and conservation goals in the future (2005).

One example of a militaristic tone is in this excerpt from an article called “The Agression and Progression of Round Gobies” (Moen 2009). The round goby is an invasive species in the Great Lakes that competes with native species for food. ‘”Round gobies are like playground bullies,” said Margot Bergstrom, the study’s lead author. “In our artificial stream trials, when one round goby was housed with a fish of a different species, the other fish fared worse. The goby would aggressively chase the other fish”‘ (Moen 2009). The word, bully, is an example of Larson’s idea of militaristic language.

I think that Larson is correct to some extent that militaristic language sometimes creates misperceptions and is counterproductive to conservation efforts. However, for the common man to pay attention to something that does not impact them directly on a daily basis, it is necessary to sensationalize and illustrate why this issue shouis important in general and more specifically to each individual. So, if used correctly, militaristic metaphors can be very useful in the attempt to spread concern about the impact of invasive species and make it understandable to the average man.

Larson, B. M. H. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.

Moen, Sharon. 2009. The Agression and Progression of Round Gobies. http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/newsletter/2009/12/the_aggression_and_progression_of_round_gobies.html Viewed 22 Feb 2010.

In his paper entitled “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology:, Brendon MH Larson argues that militaristic language used in invasive species articles to invoke a response in the reader can actually have negative effects. He claims that these metaphors contribute to public misunderstanding of invasive species, and that they support militaristic ways of thinking that make it hard to create a sustainable relationship between humans and the natural world. According to Larson, the problem with militaristic language relies on two fundamental facts about war. 1) A war requires opposing sides. 2) Wars are fought with the belief that good will triumph over evil. These assumptions are leading the public to have a misconstrued view of invasive species. They can also have a boomerang effect, where the readers have the opposite reaction to the language than is intended.

“Currently, the Australian government is preparing to spend between five and seven million dollars over the next 15 years to combat the cane toads…The economic loss resulting from the disturbance and destruction caused by invasive species is huge.” (Butler 2005). This quote is from author Tina Butler, a writer for an online newspaper, who comments about the importance of the elimination of cane toads from Australian ecosystems.

Although Larson raises a few valid points, I have to disagree with his argument. Militaristic language has inspired people to act and take up the “fight” in whatever they believe in for centuries. It’s psychological that more vivid and intense language will influence people’s opinions and possibly lead them to acting on them. I don’t think that the use of militaristic language is problematic nor is it ineffective. These metaphors do not incite riots or violence, but rather they convey the importance of the eradication and removal of invasive species and how large of an effect they have on the general public. Militaristic language is absolutely necessary to gain support from readers and to convince the general public that something must be done.

Butler, Tina. “Overstaying Their Welcome: Cane Toads In Australia.” Mongabay. http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0417b-tina_butler.html. Viewed February 23, 2010.

Larson’s paper centers around the rhetoric of invasion biology. He argues that many biologists attempt to disseminate their findings by strategically using words that relate invasive species and human counter-measure efforts to invasion plans of foreign countries. By using such words, he feels that the wrong messages about invasive species are being sent to the public (i.e. the American public and U.S. Congress) and cause the general populace to consider control efforts in “a militaristic framework…” (Larson 2005). He also feels that their informality detracts from good science. Larson says such thinking is counter-productive, as a war-like approach will not succeed because human intervention is ultimately the main source of invasive species.

After sifting through our past class materials, I came across the article on mute swans. The title: Deeply Divided Panel Backs Eradication of Mute Swans. Immediately, the word “eradication” struck me as militaristic (Halsey 2009). Had the author wanted to just write an article about the declining swan population, a word such as removal or euthanization could be used. However, this word choice grabs the readers attention as an attack on the swans. The phrase “formidable threat” continues the description of the mute swan (Halsey 2009). Better yet, the article furthers its combative stance with this invader by stating a Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources panel convened to “review its eradication program” (Halsey 2009). Why does such a belligerent stance seem so commonplace? Whether we like it or not, humans hold a innate propensity for war. Since my birth, America has engaged in several armed conflicts, and has spent very little time at peace. It would seem as though these aggressive words (or more likely, this aggressive behavior) have made their way from the battlefield to the homefront, and by extension the classroom, laboratory, dorm room, and dinner table. The first things that grab our attention are usually sensational, emotion-provoking words and images. By casting a certain invasive species as the worst thing to ever happen to an area, a researcher or reporter is almost guaranteed to gain public recognition (and often funding to conduct more research or implement a control plan). In stark contrast, the odds of a scientist gaining public recognition outside his/her field of a paper or recommendation without using militaristic words are extremely low. We are too conditioned to think like soldiers (in this sense), and often ignore anything that we don’t perceive to be a threat.

Even though we hold a natural tendency to fight anything we consider detrimental, it is ultimately our own fault for the introduction of invasive species. While such metaphors are problematic when it comes to formality, they do bring a large, rapid response from the intended audience. During the Maryland snakehead scare, many of my friends and neighbors became incredibly frightened by this Chinese “superfish.” However, the public outcry allowed for the rapid approval of snakehead removal efforts. Thus, the response provoked by using militaristic references are almost always unparalleled.

Halsey, A. “Deeply divided panel backs eradication of mute swans.” 2009. The Washington Post. Retrieved 23 February 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051501258.html

Larson, B. M. H. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.