The original intent of describing the controlling of  invasive species in militaristic terms was to inspire action to help the problem. According to Brendon MH Larson, however, it has done nearly the opposite. In the article, “The War of the Roses: Demilitarizing Invasion Biology,” Larson claims that despite the short term attention drawn from words such as combat or eradicate, the long term effects prove to be insufficient.  In one instance, Larson cites the “‘boomerang’ effect, whereby ‘extremely intense language or images used for purpose of persuasion can have an opposite effect on the receiver,” as studied by Mio (1997). Despite Larson’s coherent argument, the warlike approach builds up an idea in the audience’s minds that invasive species are the enemies. In the end, creating a negative attitude against them may ultimately drive future decisions against them when given the opportunity.

One instance of the effectiveness of the combative approach is seen in Rejmanek et al. in 2002. The belligerentword, “eradication” is clearly labeled in the title, and 51 other times throughout the article. Other militaristic words such as “strategy” and “target” are coupled with “eradication” to describe the efforts against invasive species. The article itself argues that the “eradication” of a particularly invasive weed is feasible with possible biocontrol methods. Larson argues that the militaristic language is ”misleading” because it assumes “we can pit ourselves against invasive species.” As seen in the case of Rejmanek et al., we can in fact successfully rid an area of an invasive species, thus proving Larson wrong.

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

Rejmanek, M., M. J. Pitcairn. 2002. When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal?  In Veitch, C. R. and Clout, M. N. (eds.). Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group: 249-253

.

In Larson’s article, The War of the Roses: Demilitarizing Invasion Biology, Larson firmly opposes the militaristic rhetoric that saturates current literature regarding invasive species.  Metaphors referring to invasive species as “enemies” that must be “destroyed, battled, and fought”, says Larson, can detract from the author’s goal; He believes writing in such extremes inevitably results in inadequate or inaccurate descriptions, and can make the reader less affected or moved by the text. Thinking in a militaristic way, says Larson, detracts from the the ultimate goal of solving the species imbalance and creating a synergistic relationship between all the present species. It is not a good approach, therefore, to set human beings against nonnative species as if human beings will eventually be the savior, for two reasons; according to Larson, human activity is often the means by which invasive species are spread to begin with, and additionally, attempting to restore a habitat to its original collection of species, and in the original balanced ratios, is a futile exercise.  Instead of discussing how to remove invaders, the rhetoric we use should center around preventing further spread of invasive species.  Larson suggests comparing invaders to pathogens and diseases in the body, because the human tendency to sympathize with the notion of a healthy ecosystem would be more effective than the militaristic description.  Finally, he suggests that humans absorb the notion that they are to blame for the transportation of invasive species and must assume responsibility for them, rather than view them as aliens and separate entities.

In my own blog about the invasive species, the Rusty Crayfish, I myself use militaristic language, in the following passage:

“The Rusty Crayfish is on it way to destroying many stream and lake ecosystems and has induced a number of ecological problems due to its aggressive usurpation of non-native habitats… The anglers who enjoy fishing as a recreational activity seem unaware that the non-native species they continue to introduce to new environments is destroying the diversity in the marine beds, making food acquisition difficult, reducing nesting areas and erosion control, and eliminating many fish populations.” (Majumdar, See Blog Reference Below)

In this small paragraph, I depict a crayfish as a destructive force, with vocabulary including “aggressive” and “usurpation”. While the statements are not untrue by any means, my argument is weakened, and appears dramatized, by the idea of a river creature “usurping” anything.  The gravity of my argument is diminished by this exagerrated rhetoric, and therefore I do agree with Larson, to an extent, because he makes valid points outlined in the first paragraph.  I do believe, however, that criticizing this kind of militaristic language gives the rhetoric too much importance since these terms are often used this way in all kinds of literature, and militaristic talk has also become accepted colloquially. This means the severity behind the terms has diminished and the “fight” against invaders no longer means that scientists are proposing for environmentalists to venture out to the aquatic environments and literally fight off anything. Thus, Larson makes valid points and the rhetoric in many invasive species papers could be improved to strengthen the arguments, because dramatizing the situation can become ineffective, even when the content is significant or possibly alarming, but Larson also takes the rhetoric too literally.
Reference:

https://sites.duke.edu/writing20_12_f2010/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=255

In the “The War of the Roses: Demilitarizing Invasion Biology” paper, Larson argues that using militaristic language is not an effective way to write about invasive species. One way he thinks the use of this jargon is a poor way to write about alien species is because it creates an opening for debate as to whether or not we need to change the way we are trying to maintain native ecosystems. Making invasive species the clear “enemy” also causes points of inaccuracies. Although Larson does accept that the use of militaristic language captures readers attention, he says that in the end the overuse of this type of language is ineffective.

One example of militaristic rhetoric being used in an invasive species article is found in an article titled “Knee Deep Club declares war on invasive plant”, by John Luciano. Although the article is about a group of concerned citizens striving to keep the Water Chestnut plant off of their land, the language used makes it sound much more intense. One of the clubs members, Tim Clancy, was quoted saying “I want everyone to know that this menace is not in Lake Hopatcong yet, but it is a real threat”. This type of language and rhetoric is what Larson thinks articles would be better off without.

Personally, I like militaristic language being used in articles such as these. I feel like it grabs the publics attention and shows them that these somewhat unknown issues are very serious and require prompt and drastic measures to be taken Although I can see where Larson is coming from, I think that metaphorically connecting war to invasive species is an effective way of shedding light on the issues at hand.

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

Luciano, John. “Knee Deep Club declares war on invasive plant – NorthJersey.com.”NorthJersey.com. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://www.northjersey.com/recreation/94557669_Knee_Deep_Club_declares_war_on_invasive_plant.html>.

Brendon MH Larson’s article discusses the use of combative language when describing invasion biology. He claims in his paper that the militaristic metaphors used do not promote effective and appropriate responses to invasive species. Instead, such language leads to readers misunderstanding the invasive species, increase xenophobia, and promote militaristic thoughts towards the species rather than approaching the issue scientifically. He believes that aggressive language will promote short-term results but in the long term, it will not result in success in ecosystem conservation (Larsen 2005).

An example of such language can been seen in a British news site article on invading species that were colonizing Britain. Right away, the title uses the militaristic phrase, “Invasion of the aliens,” followed by, “colonising Britain.” (Clay-Jones and Bignell 2008) From the title, a person’s first impression would be that something foreign is taking over and living in Britain and that such an invader should be kicked out as soon as possible. The opening paragraph then states that the “poisonous false widow spider are booming and expanding as never before,” (Clay-Jones and Bignell 2008) which makes the reader think about alien poisonous spiders taking over a country, leaving a very misleading impression. Such an opening approach isolates the species from the reader’s world, making them feel as though the animals came from a different planet and must be stopped before the aliens take over the world.

While describing the spiders as dangerous is not bad, giving such a strong impression of them being alien invaders that must be stopped is a strong misinterpretation. Misunderstanding species in invasion biology may motivate the population into action faster by scaring them, but effective ecosystem conservation requires society to properly understand the species and approach the situation without unreasonable xenophobia clouding people’s judgment.

References:

Clay-Jones, Megan, and Paul Bignell. “Invasion of the Aliens: The Exotic Species That Are Colonising Britain – Nature, Environment -    The Independent.” The Independent | News | UK and Worldwide News | Newspaper. 31 Aug. 2008. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/invasion-of-the-aliens-the-exotic-species- that-are-colonising-britain-913932.html>.

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

Often times the efficacy of an argument lies in how the position is presented.  Brendon Larson’s article “The war of roses: demilitarizing invasion biology” demonstrates how using militaristic rhetoric can undermine the writers work in many different fashions.  In his article, he shows how this form of rhetoric potentially brings the reader to false perception of invasive species. He writes about how invasion biology can often make a species unable to become completely extinct in a foreign habitat. While an invasive species could potentially be removed, the hybrids and inbreeding that might have already occurred show that a militaristic approach singling out one invasive species might not be all that effective.

The article also protests that using martial rhetoric may bring the reader to the conclusion that one must be at war against an invasive species.  The violent undertone that this style of writing creates can divide society on the issue and therefore detract from controlling the invasive species. This approach may seem contradictory, as efforts should be made to conserve natural habitats, not repress certain animals.  The author seems to support a much more holistic approach to understanding invasive species, instead of targeting them as enemies.

With relevance to the film “Strange Days on Planet Earth” Brianca King’s blog post “Termite Attack” focuses in on the termite problem faces New Orleans homeowners. After promoting Dr. Claudia Riegel’s approach to baiting the termites, she suggests a rather militaristic approach provided Riegel’s approach is ineffective: “I feel that if this approach is not effective the next step should be try and eliminate the termites on a larger scale.” There is an unquestionable amount of military rhetoric in this statement. My belief is that Bianca supports an attempt at a mass extinction of this aquatic invasive species. In other words, it almost sounds like she wants to go to war against this insect.

While this quote might be considered an example of military rhetoric, there is something positive to be said about this approach. Often times in order to protect our environment we must be forthright in addressing the problem. In this case, it seems that the termites is the main culprit. Although it may seem like we are waging war against these wood-eating critters, there may be no other solution than doing just that. A militaristic approach should not necessarily be ruled out, as it can be the most practical solution to the problem.

Brendon MH Larson,  2005, “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology.” Frontiers in Ecology, (495-500).

Brianca King “Termite Attack”

Larson (2005) brings up the common use of militaristic rhetoric in invasive species literature by establishing the argument that these metaphors can be problematic in the long run despite attracting the attention of the general public. The author first notes that metaphor as a device relates two subjects, but is never a perfect comparison. Larson (2005) then continues to explain how comparing invasive species problems with war battles leaves too much room open for misconceptions about the problem at hand. A war deals with clear opposing sides fighting each other, but the problem at hand is not a pure black and white battle of humans versus invasive species. The roots of the dilemma are so intertwined on both sides that war is a misleading comparison. There is not even a clear enemy since some species can be helpful or detrimental depending on the environment. Larson (2005) also mentions how militaristic language in invasive species literature could carry a “xenophobic resonance.” People could develop the assumption that all foreign species have a negative impact on the environment, all due to the rhetoric used in describing the actual invasive species.

The 2002 Washington Post article, “Spawn of Snakehead?” uses militaristic rhetoric when explaining the history of a similar invader.

“California has spent millions in its war against the pike, a nonnative fish that was smuggled into Lake Davis in the 1990s and that threatens to wipe out a $1 billion trout industry. Five years ago, state game officials drained most of the lake and dumped in several tons of poison in an effort to kill the fish. The pike returned within a year, and the state ended up paying nearly $10 million in damages to a nearby town whose water supply was contaminated.”

I agree with Larson (2005) that militaristic metaphors are “problematic” and “ineffective” when writing about invasive species because only one side of the war described is to blame. These foreign species could barely be described as “invaders” because they did not transfer habitats on their own; we moved them there in some way. By establishing a battle against invasive species, many people gain the misconception that the solution is just killing off the existing population. California used this approach of taking out the pike through brute force, but was met by the “boomerang effect” of unintended consequences just like the language used in the article. Preventing transportation of the species in the first place could yield much better result, but the military metaphor does not suggest this approach. I also agree with Larson (2005) that unlike in war, there will be no “victory” over the invasive species, but merely an eventual coexistence between native and foreign species.

References:

Huslin, Anita and Ruane, Michael. 2002. Spawn of Snakehead? Suspicious Baby Fish Heighten Fears Among Md. Officials, Scientists. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/snakehead/news0710.php. Viewed 12 Oct 2010.

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

In the paper “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology” (Larson 2005), the author stated that prevailing usage of militaristic language in issues about invasion biology is rather problematic. While such language may be helpful in raising public awareness at first glance, it might be misleading and inappropriate in the long term. Readers will be guided to regard invasive species as “enemies”, and the human-species relationship will be treated like a war. Therefore, people will oversimplify the complexity of the problem and aim to win over invasive species, which is pointless since ecosystems can hardly be turn back into pristine state. The author suggested that alternative expression should be adopted to help seeking conservative solutions to the problems of invasive species.

I used militaristic language in my own blog post “Invaders on the Move”. For instance, I used the phrases “destructive species”, “fight the invaders”, and “fighting off water hyacinth”. While I agree with Larson that these expressions might be inappropriate in scientific papers, I personally consider them acceptable in non-scientific writings oriented towards the general public. In my opinion, militaristic expressions play a significant role in addressing the severity of the problem, which is of more importance to the public than potential misunderstanding. Also, scientific accuracy is not such a big deal when it comes to non-scientific literature. At least for me, militaristic language in literatures and films well warned me of the harsh situation human beings are facing. In conclusion, such language might be appropriate in many cases.

My Post: Invaders on the Move

In his article, Larson argues that militaristic language when speaking about invasive species simply propels sentiment where it does not belong. Relating problems such as invasive species using war terms puts those invasive species in a position that they do not belong. It blinds the reader to the fact that it is prevention and regulation that is important, not eradication or destruction. The goal is to keep invasive species from harming other species and habitats, not to hate the species and wage war on it. Larson states that perhaps focusing on conservation and acceptance would be a better path to take.

Even I have been a user of militaristic rhetoric in my own blog posts. In my post about the water hyacinth, “What Really Happened to the Water Hyacinth”, I wrote about the weevils chances of “successfully fighting off the water hyacinth” and about the “foreign invader” that is water hyacinth.

I agree with Larson in that the language at times may keep people from realizing that it is not so much a battle against the species in question, but really it is an ongoing goal of conservatism. However, the militaristic language and rhetoric are often the same tools used to get the people going. The language may be strong, but if it were weaker people would just find it easier to ignore. So, to an extent, the crazy fear mongering language we usually find on cable news, is sometimes necessary to actually get things done.

In summary of Larson’s article, prevalent use of militaristic language to describe invasive species may serve as an easily understandable metaphor to help draw attention from the public, but is mostly short term, misleading, and comes with numerous other side effects. Larson argues that militaristic language implies that there are two opposing sides, and one (the good) with will triumph over the other (the evil). This view is evades reality where we are very much tied to invasive species through our actions and can not “triumph” over them. Additionally, with this language we stop looking at each individual species as separate cases and treat them all as “equally bad enemies,” perhaps compromising efficacy in control. On  the social facet, using loaded words alienates foreigners, polarizes those who oppose and those who support the “war,” and erodes public trust in scientific objectivity. Larson suggests that conceptualizing invasive species as a disease can serve as an alternative to help the public stay conscious of the our ecosystem’s health (Larson, 2005).

While doing further research on hydrilla, I came across a press release that reports the additional funds added to “fight the ongoing battle against hydrilla”  in Lake Conroe.  It consistently describes the situation as a desperate fight ongoing for several years where fish donors are “suffering from donor fatigue” (Kuhles, 2010).  While this is not a piece of scientific writing at Larson mainly discuses in his article, it still should still mirror the same amount of objectivity. In this specific case where the press release is targeting the residents of a small community, I believe that militaristic language is mostly beneficial because it helps incite citizens to take care of what’s in their own backyard. People like linear solutions, a good and a bad, especially if they don’t already have a strong understanding of the subject. However, Larson’s argument applies heavily to scientific writing. Objectivity is standard and militaristic writing is simply inappropriate.

KUHLES, BK. (2010). Montgomery county adds funds to fight hydrilla. The Houston Chronicle, Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/conroe/news/5609828.html

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

Larson (2005) describes an argument that the use of aggressive or militaristic language is not an effective way to combat invasive species.  Larson (2005) argues that the militaristic writing styles encourages the reader to want to get involved with the effort to slow the spread of invasive species.  However, this usually leaves the reader misinformed or entirely uniformed about the actual situation, which can lead to rash, ineffective, and or harmful, actions being made.

In my own blog posts I have used militaristic language.  When describing the issue of the water hyacinth on Lake Victoria  I used lines such as, “the water hyacinth has been extremely destructive to both the species of Lake Victoria and the humans who depend upon the lake for food and water,” and later on, describing which scientific study I believe is more correct, I continue to use militaristic language, “the weevil is now the dominant force driving down the water hyacinth population.  Williams et al (2007) fails to give reasoning for why, even after the 1998 El Nino, the water hyacinth population has not experienced the same expansive growth rate that it did prior to El Nino.”  Specific key militaristic phrases in these quotes are, extremely destructive, dominant force driving down, and expansive growth rate.  I do agree with Larson (2005) that language such as the examples above does simplify the gravity of the situation by showing only part of the picture.  And for any argument to be successful, both sides of the issue must be represented.

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