Wild Food Foragers vs Ecologists
Over the past month I've become slowly aware of a separation between two communities that should be closely aligned. It's similar to the division between cat-lovers and ecologists, but with its own distinctions.
Wild food foragers are excellent naturalists. The best can tell the difference between many different confusing plant species--the difference between life and death in some cases. They understand ecology--that is, they are aware of seasons and habitats, and know where and when to find their quarry. Their senses are honed by practicality. I love having foragers along on Urban Nature Walks--they are some of the best, most confident naturalists I've met, with a profound respect for nature and an obvious delight for being in the out of doors.
That's why it's so distressing to me that I have detected this separation. The issue is invasive species. Many invasive species are attractive targets for foraging--this makes perfect sense, since the usefulness of a plant is what makes it more likely to be brought to another continent to begin with. Ecologists who dabble in foraging (like myself) tend to tolerate a certain level of useful invasive species. I like that the cities are full of white mulberry, and I relish the Himalayan blackberry that plagues the Pacific Northwest.
But when it comes to species that create monocultures, that reduce biodiversity in the areas that they thrive, I am intolerant. Norway maple, black swallow-wort, Japanese knotweed, and garlic mustard are simply bad news. They are all admirable plants in their own ways--you must at least admire their ability to thrive in the most difficult urban ecosystems. I am able to appreciate them as beautiful plants--just go and read the entry for black swallow-wort from 2006, you'd think I was in love. And many of these are useful to humans in various ways.
But each of these and many others cause ecological damage. Phragmites replaces cattail and blackbird habitat is lost. Japanese knotweed moves in and there are no more frogs on the water's edge. A monarch lays its eggs on a black swallow-wort leaf and the caterpillar starves to death. Garlic mustard moves into the yard and begins exuding fungicide, making it more difficult for mycorhizzae to form.
The foragers cry "eat the invasives!" I'm all for it, make all the garlic mustard pesto and strawberry knotweed pie you want. Please try to harvest it until there is no more left. But eating is not controlling. Proper agriculture and proper wild foraging have one thing in common: you take measures to ensure the plant survives, through replanting or judicious harvesting. I don't think anyone is really worried that they will over-harvest Japanese knotweed until it is extirpated, and it may not even be possible at this time. I just worry that the foragers will stand in the way of sane control measures.
I detected a tone and philosophy regarding invasives in the new book Dandelion Hunter: Foraging the Urban Wilderness that unsettled me. Author Rebecca Lerner uses scare quotes when referring to "invasive species," "native species," and terms like "noxious" and "harmful." She states that "like people and animals, plants have been migrating around the world and always will," without distinguishing between those "migrations" (now I'm using the scare quotes, but she's talking about the spread of species into new areas, not actual migration which is a to-and-from movement) caused by humans and those which occur for other reasons. A species may move into a new environment because of a weather event, or because of continental drift, but these causes are very very very slow and gradual. In the past 500 years, humans have caused species to move into new areas, sometimes with little effect, sometimes however resulting in sudden extinction of native species. Can we really be so blase about species moving from place to place when some of those events are entirely preventable (in hindsight) and man-made like the mass extinction of birds from Hawaii due to the introduction of cats, mongooses, and mosquitoes?*
Another book (which I confess I have not read) called Invasive Plant Medicine: The Ecological Benefits and Healing Abilities of Invasives is even more troubling to me. The jacket copy offers "Most of the invasive plant species under attack for disruption of local ecosystems in the United States are from Asia, where they play an important role in traditional healing." So what? The issue isn't that the plants are or aren't useful--clearly they are. The issue should be--in terms of, you know, the sustainability of the maximum diversity of living things on earth--are they causing harm to an ecosystem?
It seems that the foraging community's objection to the control of invasive species doesn't derive from the worry that garlic mustard or Japanese barberry are going to disappear. The bigger issue seems to be the use of herbicides. I have no strong opinion on this--I agree that the extensive use of chemicals in the environment has been problematic in the past. I would prefer that the use of pesticides of all kinds be very careful and well thought-out, with lots and lots of environmental impact studies. I know that there are cases where invasive plant species are controlled with herbicides--can the use of herbicides be reduced? Probably. Should that reduction of herbicide use be accomplished by denying the science of harmful invasive species? I've got a problem with that.
*I've read statements by foragers and free-roaming cat advocates saying more or less "humans are the real cause of this problem, after all." I agree, which is why I think it's our responsibility to take firm sane measures to solve it (them).
Wild food foragers are excellent naturalists. The best can tell the difference between many different confusing plant species--the difference between life and death in some cases. They understand ecology--that is, they are aware of seasons and habitats, and know where and when to find their quarry. Their senses are honed by practicality. I love having foragers along on Urban Nature Walks--they are some of the best, most confident naturalists I've met, with a profound respect for nature and an obvious delight for being in the out of doors.
That's why it's so distressing to me that I have detected this separation. The issue is invasive species. Many invasive species are attractive targets for foraging--this makes perfect sense, since the usefulness of a plant is what makes it more likely to be brought to another continent to begin with. Ecologists who dabble in foraging (like myself) tend to tolerate a certain level of useful invasive species. I like that the cities are full of white mulberry, and I relish the Himalayan blackberry that plagues the Pacific Northwest.
But when it comes to species that create monocultures, that reduce biodiversity in the areas that they thrive, I am intolerant. Norway maple, black swallow-wort, Japanese knotweed, and garlic mustard are simply bad news. They are all admirable plants in their own ways--you must at least admire their ability to thrive in the most difficult urban ecosystems. I am able to appreciate them as beautiful plants--just go and read the entry for black swallow-wort from 2006, you'd think I was in love. And many of these are useful to humans in various ways.
But each of these and many others cause ecological damage. Phragmites replaces cattail and blackbird habitat is lost. Japanese knotweed moves in and there are no more frogs on the water's edge. A monarch lays its eggs on a black swallow-wort leaf and the caterpillar starves to death. Garlic mustard moves into the yard and begins exuding fungicide, making it more difficult for mycorhizzae to form.
The foragers cry "eat the invasives!" I'm all for it, make all the garlic mustard pesto and strawberry knotweed pie you want. Please try to harvest it until there is no more left. But eating is not controlling. Proper agriculture and proper wild foraging have one thing in common: you take measures to ensure the plant survives, through replanting or judicious harvesting. I don't think anyone is really worried that they will over-harvest Japanese knotweed until it is extirpated, and it may not even be possible at this time. I just worry that the foragers will stand in the way of sane control measures.
I detected a tone and philosophy regarding invasives in the new book Dandelion Hunter: Foraging the Urban Wilderness that unsettled me. Author Rebecca Lerner uses scare quotes when referring to "invasive species," "native species," and terms like "noxious" and "harmful." She states that "like people and animals, plants have been migrating around the world and always will," without distinguishing between those "migrations" (now I'm using the scare quotes, but she's talking about the spread of species into new areas, not actual migration which is a to-and-from movement) caused by humans and those which occur for other reasons. A species may move into a new environment because of a weather event, or because of continental drift, but these causes are very very very slow and gradual. In the past 500 years, humans have caused species to move into new areas, sometimes with little effect, sometimes however resulting in sudden extinction of native species. Can we really be so blase about species moving from place to place when some of those events are entirely preventable (in hindsight) and man-made like the mass extinction of birds from Hawaii due to the introduction of cats, mongooses, and mosquitoes?*
Another book (which I confess I have not read) called Invasive Plant Medicine: The Ecological Benefits and Healing Abilities of Invasives is even more troubling to me. The jacket copy offers "Most of the invasive plant species under attack for disruption of local ecosystems in the United States are from Asia, where they play an important role in traditional healing." So what? The issue isn't that the plants are or aren't useful--clearly they are. The issue should be--in terms of, you know, the sustainability of the maximum diversity of living things on earth--are they causing harm to an ecosystem?
It seems that the foraging community's objection to the control of invasive species doesn't derive from the worry that garlic mustard or Japanese barberry are going to disappear. The bigger issue seems to be the use of herbicides. I have no strong opinion on this--I agree that the extensive use of chemicals in the environment has been problematic in the past. I would prefer that the use of pesticides of all kinds be very careful and well thought-out, with lots and lots of environmental impact studies. I know that there are cases where invasive plant species are controlled with herbicides--can the use of herbicides be reduced? Probably. Should that reduction of herbicide use be accomplished by denying the science of harmful invasive species? I've got a problem with that.
*I've read statements by foragers and free-roaming cat advocates saying more or less "humans are the real cause of this problem, after all." I agree, which is why I think it's our responsibility to take firm sane measures to solve it (them).