Oregon Sea Grant Extension has been working on applied research and education related to invasive species for quite some time. This is especially true for aquatic invasive species, which constitute some of the most serious threats to Oregon's economy due to impacts on fisheries, energy production and water quality. I would like to encourage the producers of tomorrow's show to please contact OSU Sea Grant Extension for more information or suggestions of experts in this important area. You may contact me off-line for that information.

Sam Chan or Tania Siemens are good candidates, but I am sure you are aware of these folks already since Sam was featured on the Silent Invasions. Other good guests would be Mandy Tu from the Nature Conservancy, Vern Holm from the Northwest Weed Management Partnership,or Dan Hilburn from ODA.

I was quite troubled while watching "The Silent Invasion" last night. While I appreciate the concern of habitat specialists regarding the loss of weaker indigenous species to aggressive invaders from the outside, I am more troubled by the aggressive tactics - such as the pesticide-eradication of Spartina - which are given prominent coverage.

To paraphrase Einstein, we can't solve ecological problems by emulating the very methods which have created them in the first place. Rampant ecological destruction has left native species hanging by threads. Denuded landscapes are ripe for colonization by more hearty, agressive "weeds."

The Permaculturist optimist in me considers that weeds may actually be setting the stage for ecological reparation via successor species. The realist, and reader of Planet of Weeds by David Quammen, recognizes that, in fact, "Homo sapiens itself is the consummate weed."

To hear dam operators at Lake Mead complain about a destructive mussel is like hearing a slave master complain that he can't stand to hear his chattel scream. Lake Mead represents one of the most destructive of humankind's tendencies ~ to subjugate entire ecosystems and watersheds to do our bidding. Perhaps this is a story too large to fit within the "Invasive Species" question, but sometimes we must ask ~ are we acting like an invasive species ourselves?

First let me express that I am extremely pleased to have OPB and Think Out Loud cover the issue of invasive species. I am a professional weed ecologist, and am intimately familiar with invasive species issues here in Oregon.

I am always troubled when otherwise reasonable folks express reservations about controlling invasive species. Whether it be due to herbicide concerns or some other guttural response, the simple fact is that invasive species are one of the most destructive forms of pollution. Invasive species are analogous to an oil slick or a toxic waste spill, but with the added threat of being able to increase in size. Imagine an oil spill that not only spreads but actually converts water into more oil. This is reality of invasive species.

Plants and animals are killed by invasive species. People lose their land and livelihoods to invasive species, and the result is an Oregon that less "Oregon-like". When people think of invasive species, they might think of a dandelion, or some other garden weed. The reality is much more ominous. We are looking at weeds that disrupt entire ecosystems. Ivy and Kudzu destroy entire forests. Starthistle, Pepperweed, or Cheatgrass can convert prairie and grasslands into ecological deserts with no value to plants, animals, or humans. Inaction is simply not an option.

Now the problem with many of the ominous invaders is that there is no sure fire methodology for eradication. Ecologists use techniques like burning, digging, mowing, and pulling whenever possible. Unfortunately with some species these are not effective strategies. With these problematic species, often the only effective technique is herbicides.

Now I am sympathetic to the gentleman in Willipa Bay that is concerned about the toxicity of the herbicide. I would would be weary about spraying any chemical on my property, but the herbicide that is used on Spartina has a very low toxicity. Specifically it has an LD50 (Lethal Dose of 50%) of 5000 mg/kg. For comparison table salt is more toxic at a LD50 of 3750 mg/kg. When you stop to consider that there is roughly 35,000 mg of salt per liter of saltwater, you will recognize that the saltwater itself is toxic. Now I am certain that that gentleman doesn't worry about the salt shaker at the dinner table or the incoming tides washing over his oyster beds. The sad truth is that people are fearful of what they don't understand.

Unfortunately the gentleman in Willipa Bay hasn't taken the time to educate himself. Now, I am not out to sell herbicides or boost profits for some company. My only concern is in preserving the biodiversity and ecological integrity of the Pacific Northwest, and the actions taken at Willipa Bay are top notch and based on sound science. It is a real success story amongst a myriad of oversights and failures. It is just sad to see people trying to undermine the efforts of folks at Willipa Bay to stop the colonization of invasive Spartina.





LD50 references
http://www...azapyr.pdf
http://www.../ANR-0846/

As I see this program has started a lot of interesting chat.I am keith the oyster farmer that some say needs to be educated.With that I will tell you what I know about willapa bay and the spartina grass.Then you may educate me further.When I attend the state weed board meetings and their scientific adviserary board meetings people that are oystermen other than myself have stated over and over that spartina has never encroached on there oyster beds.This is to include Dick Sheldon when he addressed the state weed board.So that eliminates one reason to poison the bay.Another reason they use is for mosquito.Well they do not lay eggs in salt water and with the bay filling or draining every 6 hours that shoots that theory down. Then there is the shorebirds.Turns out that 2 master thesis were done on shorebirds and spartina and both concluded that the shore birds used the spartina a lot and that the feed they eat in the mudflats was plentifull to include all the organisms in the spartina itself and that the same amount if not more shorebirds were present but you could not see them in the grass feeding.That shoots all three reasons presented to our state govenrment to poison the bay.Now lets talk about the chemicals used.Imazapyr,glyphosate by the way these are spelled right not like our local paper is incapable of. I would urge you to search these out and look for yourself.Then I would ask your self this .With 10 gillnetters in the bay they only caught 6 salmon but do not worry as the editor of the Chinook Observer said it washes out into the ocean 2 times a day.Then we talk about the crabbers that are getting nothing.The mallard ducks that die.Why is imazapyr not used in the most least populated state per square mile.That is Alaska and they went to court to stop its use.It is highly mobile and always finds it way into fresh water.When sprayed with all the inert ingredients.It has since drifted onto our oysters and it is not supose to move.Another falsehood.Next we have the new science that states the mixture they use is toxic to all fish crabs and invertabrates.It also kills all spat which is the natural cath of oysters.
I have seen the death of the bay by walking out into it daily not from a couch.
I do not listen to printed unsubstantiated articles. I would point out that I raise my oysters in the grass as they do on the east coast and that 24 million dollars went to Charlies private war and none of that cost was through taxes from the oyster flats on willapa bay yet where the grass was now the big companies are laying gravel and making clam beds.Maybe if you look at pacific countie tax sifter and type in any oyster company you will see what taxes they pay.This is to include me. 20 milliona year and free expansion. Maybe with that you will understand the big lie.Ask about the development on the bay where they poisoned the grass.Now let us see if there is a good teacher out there with a good response .

If we could detect new invaders and control them before they become widespread, we could reduce our need to utilize controversial control methods such as herbicides or biocontrol. I would like to encourage your listeners to help with early detection by learning about what new invaders are threatening their areas and report them to the OPB reporting hotline. The Western Invasives Network website is an excellent place to start. www.westerninvasivesnetwork.org

I agree that it is important for people to be able to recognize new invaders, but in order to do that they have to know what is native and what is supposed to be here. We need better natural history education in general, not just education programs aimed at invasive species. If we don't do this people are not going to be able to identify invaders and will not likely care about native flora and fauna.

In addition, I think it is a mistake to target elementary school kids with invasive species messages. They need to be learning to know and appreciate all organisms in their environment. They are too young to burden with the unpleasant realities we face as adults. More sophisticated messages about native and nonnative can wait until they are in middle and senior high school.

"Homo sapiens itself is the consummate weed." the discussion of whether or not humans are the ultimate invasive species is moot - at best an academic discussion - with little or no effect on the discourse on those invasive species that are having both ecological and economic impacts on those resources to which we have attributed value. I also find the above comment on Lake Mead to be disingenuous and distracting from any discussion of a solution however strongly one might feel about habitat alteration for socioeconomic benefit.

Learning to "live with" invasive species is certainly an option, and a seemingly easy one upfront, but embracing (or rather choosing not to respond to) invasive species can have negative ramifications far into the future with costs both ecological and economic that we may note even be able to accurately measure. Unlike conventional pollution (as mentioned above) invasive species can be considered a form of biological pollution which, instead of diminishing over time or dilution into the environment, has the ability to both replicate itself and actively spread to new environments. Some invasive species may seem relatively benign but multiple invaders may have additive effects that are worse than two single invasions (ex. bullfrogs and sunfish). Other invaders can linger benignly in an environment for years (even tens of years) before becoming a problem (ex. green crab on the east coast). If we decide to "live with" an invader now (for whatever reason - unwillingness/inability to use herbicides, acceptance of the invasions as a natural processes, etc.) we may just be setting up future generations for additional harm caused by these species. Harm for which there may not be a technological fix, by which time the population size of the invader has become impossible to eradicate.

As the above poster mentions detecting and controlling invasive species before they become established reduces our need for controversial control methods. However by far the most cost effective and least controversial action is preventing new invasive species introductions. Prevention is something that everyone can participate in and is as easy as not dumping aquarium species into the wild, washing fishing gear and boats before moving from location to location, purchasing ornamental plants from knowledgeable local suppliers not shady internet dealers, not importing live (illegal) fish bait, etc.

I think Oregon's scariest invasive species is Californians!

Thanks to OPB and all the other organizations out there doing their level best to educate and inform the public about invasive species.

As a biologist for Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District in Beaverton, I have worked many hundreds of hours on 'managing' invasive species, both plant and animal. At times this seems an uphill battle, but I've seen positive, measurable results from all the work that has been done on this front. Most of this work has been done in partnership with various agencies and non-profit organizations, such as Clean Water Services and SOLV, respectively.

One project in our district has resulted in the removal of over 40 common snapping turtles from a pond in one of our parks that is less than 1/8 mile from Fanno Creek. Notably, these non-native, predatory turtles are healthy and reproducing in the pond, yet in the four years while the project has been going on, and for at least a decade prior, no native turtles have ever been seen in the pond. This, in light of the fact that pond turtles are living in the Fanno Creek system less than a mile away, is both surprising and dismaying. We can't say for certain that the snapping turtles are the primary reason we aren't seeing our native turtles in the pond, but the evidence is pretty damning. But we are having an effect and, once the snapping turtles have been removed completely, we hope to see basking pond turtles in the pond sometime in the near future.

At another site about a mile upstream we are using a variety of integrated pest management techniques to battle three especially problematic weeds: purple loosestrife, meadow knapweed, and yellow floatingheart. Yellow floatingheart is an aquatic weed that was discovered in an ephemeral pond about three years ago, and this was the first discovery of this species in the state of Oregon. Quick action with our partners at the Oregon Department of Agriculture has resulted in a reduction of approximately 90% of the population. The other weeds are under management methods including mechanical, chemical, and biological control coupled with cultural changes in how our organization manages the infested area. In each of these cases, it has taken a combination of pro-active, integrated management techniques, implemented quickly and aggressively, to get these weeds under control.

Garlic mustard is one of the latest invaders in the Portland area, yet many organizations have pitched in to attack and control the spread of this insidious invader that has the potential to change entire ecosystems. This is yet another example of what individuals, working together, can accomplish.

Yes, the battle against such invaders as English ivy and Himalayan blackberry are ongoing, and, yes, the battle at times seems uphill and never-ending, but the positive results I've seen from our efforts on these and other species is very encouraging. I strongly feel that if each of us does a consistent amount of work, even if it seems a small amount overall, we can get these weeds under control.

Apologies if this is covered in the program, but none of the discussion here seems to address the origin of invasive species. Where are they coming from? The trade in exotic pets is low hanging fruit, but how significant is it, really? How much comes from pathways related to international trade? Does anyone know? Probably not because of poor record keeping on the part of the Department of Agriculture and the federal inspection services at our borders. But I suspect that this is where our system fails us; has commerce clouded our perception?

Better inspections, better enforcement, and better detection and eradication efforts around ports of entry will almost certainly yield better results than very expensive and controversial after-the-fact eradication efforts. I don't mean to say that tackling problems like tamarisk and purple loosestrife is not a priority, but does it make sense to mop the floor while the sink is still overflowing? The first step is to turn off the tap.

Watch the show. Makes for more informed discussions.

THANKS for generating the post on origins. True, the detection of new invasives at the ports of entry is the key. To be most proactive, restrict and deter the movement of those invaders to begin with. This is not a new concept. On the agricultural side, regulations generated by the 1912 Plant Quarantine Act and other Acts since then have given authority to federal agencies to hold and reject imports due to significant pest risk. Inspections are conducted based on current regulations; current regulations reflect known pest risk; pest risk is assessed, in part, through review of national databases, including thousands of port interception records (40,000 pest interceptions for 2007 alone!). Diseases, insects, mollusks, nematodes, pest life stages, countries of origin, commodities associated with, ...all these trends are monitored. And every time a new plant commodity is proposed for import, a risk analysis is done before permits are issued. The Safeguarding net has many "threads" that keep it tight: regulations, trade negotiations, permits, port inspections, pathway analysis, targeted detection surveys, etc... It's a BIG SYSTEM. However, there are gaps in the net. Having the resources, funding to keep up with the volume of trade is an ongoing issue. But to respond further to one of your comments,...
Some members of the exotic pet trade industry have unfortunately bypassed the safeguarding net for a few quick buck$. Through smuggling-domestic production-sales of invaders, these new invaders make it into our backyards, ponds, and stream. I'm glad to see all this discussion on the Exotic Pet trade. The reason the pet trade is such "low-hanging fruit", is that outreach and education seem to be the best tools we have to prevent the problem in the first place.

Remember - we are an invasive species! A few invasives are destructive (like cheat grass, the false brome in Oregon, and humans are the worse), but the majority of introduced species are not. Simply targeting all foreigners is not wise. Even English ivy comes in many varieties- from what we know only one genetic strain (variety) is actually invasive. We should not prevent the sale of all varieties because of the invasive behavior of one.
Here at PSU we are conducting research on one of the most threatening invasive species in Oregon - the false brome. It has spread from its points of introduction in Eugene and Corvalis since the 1970's and is now invading the Portland area and and Washington. Metro and other organizations are engaging in control efforts, but it is difficult to eradicate. I would be happy to talk more about this and other invasive plants. (not available after 9:30 AM)

Mitch Cruzan
Associate Professor of Biology
Portland State University
503-725-8391

Less accessible parts of the beautiful Marquam Nature Park in the SW hills above Terwilliger are turning into ivy deserts. If you hike into these areas you can quickly find many acres where nearly all the trees and shrubs have been killed by ivy. Is it possibly better in the long run to use herbicides to kill off all the ivy, once and for all, followed by a replanting of native plants?

My mother was British and French and she brought her cultural tastes with her when we moved to the States, so I grew up in a brick house covered in ivy and climbing roses. When I became a home owner I naturally planted lots of climbing roses and ivy. I've always been conscientious about making sure the ivy doesn't jump out of my yard, knowing how it can take over.
Someone recently pointed out to me that every time I cut back the ivy and put it in the yard debris garbage can I'm in effect spreading it around outside the confines of my yard. Is this true, and if so, what's a fellah to do?

The sad part is that just growing it on your property doesn't mean your not spreading it. Birds eat the berries of ivy and void the seeds in distant locations. This is how the species disperses. Even if you think that your keeping it your yard, your spreading seeds on the wings of birds.

I have been involved as a volunteer erradicating ivy from various parks around the Portland Metro area. Everytime I hear of a friend planting ivy in their yard, I cringe. It is hard work to keep ivy under control.

On the other hand, I have more affinity to blackberries. While I don't think I would purposely plant it, I love picking them in the fields around my home.

I live in NE Portand and we have a problem with invasive squirrels (Eastern Grey). A neighbor feeds them peanuts and they are overpopulated and are nesting in our front porch and attic. Other neighbors are having issues as well. We are spending hundreds of dollars to capture the squirrels and keep them out and when they are caught they are euthanized. It is important for people to know not to feel wildlife, even if they think they are "cute."

The West Willamette Restoration Partnership, a group of over fifteen neighborhood organizations, City of Portland, OHSU, PGE, NW Natural and Three Rivers Land Conservancy is actively working in the west hills of Portland to remove tree ivy from 300 acres and restore 50 acres. One part to this program is the Backyard Habitat Certification Program.
Many homeowners feel alone in their challenge to remove invasive plants. This program does on the ground support for these homeowners and provides benefits (i.e. native plants, etc.) for their work. Besides focusing on large natural areas, we also need to work with homeowners who have these noxious plants in their backyard. Otherwise, our work will continue.
FYI, we are actively working to expand this backyard certification program region wide. It works with local programs with invasive plants.

I work for Mount Angel Abbey. The Abbey owns a good deal of forest land that was overrun with Himalayan Blackberry, thistles, Scotch Broom, etc. A couple of years ago they brought in a herd of sheep and goats. Goats especially will eat anything that doesn't eat them first and all the way down to the roots. And they consider blackberry a real delicacy. So the goats dealt with the problem. The understory of our woods are now quite open, with saplings coming up in a lot of areas (protected by little cages to keep the animals from eating _them_) and ferns and grasses and such and all those nasty invasive species cut way back. I was just looking up the hill as I was driving in and noted that the former blackberry thickets are pretty much either gone or dead with only a few new shoots this spring, and the goats eyeing them hungrily.

Regarding giving police powers of inspection of boats in Oregon, one of the interviewees stated: "it seems draconian until you think of the consequences." But I just wanted to add that 1) these are POTENTIAL consequences 2) there are other consequences than bringing in invasive species - particularly in regards to rights to be free of unwarranted searches.

I don't know much about the issue and maybe somehow it wouldn't be a privacy issue, but I just see red flags when I hear people say things that liberties are worth sacrificing for consequences.

We so rarely have an opportunity to stop invasive species before they start. Clark County had the opportunity of stopping the recently released and now thriving population of tropical Monk Parakeets. They chose not to, even though their populations continue to increase. Why do we purposely allow some species to swell to uncontrollable levels?

I have watched