To Be or Not to Be: Introduced Species

I received a comment on my home page that prompted me to produce some thoughts on introduced species more thoroughly. Of course, I could dedicate many posts for this topic, analyzing each situation individually, but this summary will do for now.

Don't be fooled by this bird's innocent "walking the fence" look. He's picked sides. Yes, he's all for destroying agriculture and isn't ashamed of it.

First of all, there is a difference between and an "introduced" species and an "invasive" one. While nearly all invasives are introduced, not all introduced species are invasives. Take, for example, the starling. The starling is a little old-world bird that somehow made its way to North America as some European immigrant's idea of "a touch of home." So it is certainly an introduced species. But is it harmful, unwanted, that is, invasive? With astoundingly aggressive reproductive habits and a love for the farmer's crop, there is certainly a case to be made for that position. However, the starling has become largely stable in its new environment and, as far as I know, has not caused the extinction of any other animals (though it has contributed to the endangerment of a few warbler species--though habitat destruction is probably the primary concern for those species). So from an ecologists perspective, the starling is not particularly invasive.

The American kestrel might be the hero in the battle
against starlings.

However, a farmer will tell you quite a different story. The starling moves in massive flocks during migration and they often make purposeful stops at farmer Brown's fields. In a day, the giant flock can consume nearly everything the farm had to offer the world. So from an economical perspective, the starling is a terror. Though I may have exaggerated.
So, the question is, when do we act to remove a species and when should we simply allow things to follow a course unaltered by human intervention. Even if you don't believe that it is our God-given responsibility to care for creation, the moral obligation to do so in the case of introduced species is not diminished. It was people who introduced them in the first place (though not always purposefully) so they are clearly the peoples responsibility.
When it comes down to it, every situation must be taken on an individual basis. In the case of the starlings, they are, in every practical sense, here to stay. There is no eradicating them. So, I would say, just let them alone. However, that kind of thinking does not remove the economic problem. The reality is, the starlings cannot be removed entirely. Thus, some method of coexistence must be reached for both starlings and farmer's crops. Many solutions have been thought up to deal with this problem (nets, guns, pranks, etc.) but none are the cure-all (starlings are too smart). Perhaps the best suggestion is natural predators. As it turns out, the American kestrel, like its European relation, loves the taste of starling McNuggets. Unfortunately, because of pesticides and destruction of suitable habitat, the kestrel doesn't frequent farms. If more could be done to favour those birds, the starlings wouldn't do so well.

Many state parks put up educational signs informing the
public of the invasive species in the area to prevent spread.
This one is at Big Lagoon State Park in Florida where
exotics (tropical invasives) are a problem.

Then there is the question of killing. If you can be confident that a harmful animal will be exterminated, then go ahead and exterminate. Problems over.
However, sometimes, as in the case of the starling, you could shoot hundreds of the birds and there would still be thousands waiting to eat your crops. So, is life really worth so little that you would take it without any long-term solution? This, of course, is debatable. Killing some starlings can frighten many others away and might just be the ticket to saving your crop that year. I think in such a case it is okay to shoot some of the birds, though such a position is up for debate. Now, if it were a native bird devouring the crops, I would say killing should be out of the question. But, since it is an introduced species, we placed it there in the first place, so I suppose we can take it out. But this really is a difficult thing to give a definite answer for.
In the end, don't forget that you are responsible for the state of creation. Every human is. We have a soul and the ability to act outside of our natural bounds. So don't take invasive species lightly. Be sure to enjoy nature (don't let a starling in picture stress you out) and even enjoy the introduced species, but act when things get out of hand. Sometimes, when a very invasive species cannot be exterminated, keeping it at bay is the next best thing. If anyone has any questions about a particular introduced species just let me know. I'd be glad to answer any questions and let you know of some possible course of action for that particular species.

Nephesh: Deserving Life

"Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood--I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, 'None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.'" (Leviticus 17:10-12 NIV)

I am often astonished at the favouritism people show to certain animals over others. When showing a slideshow of my photographs, everybody thinks bunnies and puppies are cute as anything, but gasps of disgust emanate from many of the viewers when they see a snake on the screen. It's not a matter of which animals are more dangerous. A harmless garter snake can be shown and it elicits the same response. Why, I can't help but think that a rabbit would do more bodily harm than that little snake! And it's not a matter of not knowing that an animal is harmless. Education isn't the issue. I've educated people as well as I know how, and they still have a illogical aversion toward the beautiful creature. It's an enigma.
One thing that did pop out at me a couple days ago revealed something of how people justify their hatred for culturally unaccepted animals. I saw someone (names have been omitted) spot a nest of young golden orb-weavers (a kind of harmless garden spider that eats only insects and wont bite humans even when handled) and call for her father. The man promptly found a a pair of work gloves and attempted to quench their lives. He succeeded for the most part, though, when some escaped and ran panicking up his glove his eyes bugged out of his head in fear and he gasped in a momentary and brief panic attack. His urgency to destroy the infant spiders encouraged me to remain a silent observer up to this point. Sometimes an untimely rebuke and do more harm than good, and I was hoping to save more lives in the long run. He was disturbingly determined to squelch that batch of babies.
After things calmed down, I calmly instructed him that the spiders that he had just killed were of a species that is of no harm to man, and actually benefit him in the management of pests in his garden. To this he replied with an irritated tone that he didn't like webs in his yard (the very mechanism that the spider designs to catch his garden pests) and that he had a right to kill spiders that were in his yard because they don't have nephesh life. The first excuse wasn't even worthy of being addressed, but he had a point with the nephesh life there.

Why do people have such an aversion to "creeping
things?" This harmless garter snake, like most of God's
smaller creatures, is stunningly beautiful. What's not to
like about them?

Nephesh is a Hebrew word usually translated "soul" in the Bible. In an attempt to explain certain features on animals that clearly display a design for killing other living things, creationists have differentiated between animals that they think have nephesh life and those that don't. It is commonly believe that insects and other invertebrates do not have nephesh life because they would provide food for carnivores before the Curse that brought death into the world in Genesis chapter three. If they don't have nephesh life, then they can't really die, so to speak, and their falling prey to other animals doesn't spoil the "very good" of the original creation. Personally, I wouldn't call the squirming agonizing death of an earthworm "very good," but that is besides the point.
"This life" in the above verse from Leviticus is nephesh in the Hebrew. Also, Deuteronomy 12:23 says more clearly that "the blood is the life [nephesh]" (NIV). It seems to be the Biblical definition of what things may qualify for nephesh. They must have blood, because that is where the nephesh is. I had originally just assumed that insects had blood and, thus, they qualified. However, those of us not in the field of biology my doubt it, so here's some science.
Plants do not have blood. Blood serves a number of functions (like transporting water and nutrients or binding to oxygen with hemoglobin. Plants have fluids that transport water, but they are different than the fluids that transport nutrients. Some plants even have a hemoglobin-like molecule in their leaves, but it is not transported by a water based fluid. So, although plants perform the functions of blood, it isn't blood that performs these functions. They also lack plasma. No blood for plants.
Insects on the other hand have a fluid in their bodies that, is just like the blood of humans (complete with proteins and plasma), where it not for a few little differences. Vertebrate blood has hemoglobin with the base element of iron for the transportation of oxygen. Insects, on the contrary have a base atom of copper, so the molecule is called hemolymph rather than hemoglobin. It still serves the same function in the transportation of oxygen, though. Just a note: some invertebrates do have hemoglobin rather than hemolymph.
A more major difference between vertebrates and insects and their blood has nothing to do with the blood itself but, rather, the way it is distributed across the body for its functions. Vertebrates have a closed circulatory system, where blood flows through vessels and diffuses across the membrane of the capillary wall, and insects have an open circulatory system where the heart simply pumps blood directly into the nooks and crannies of the body without the use of vessels. But that wouldn't indicate that what the insect's heart pumps isn't real blood. So, scientifically, insects have blood and, therefore, nephesh.
So, there is absolutely no reason, given the above verses and science's confirmation, that we should doubt the nephesh status of invertebrates. However, there are other reasons.
The Bible is pretty clear that plants do not have nephesh life and are never actually described as dying in the Bible (rather, they "wither"). But what about invertebrates? Can we weed insects like plants simply based on personal preference? Or are they on an equal plane with other animals like dogs and horses having a "soul?"
If there was any doubt as to how important these nephesh creatures are to God, they were named by Adam in Genesis 2:19 at His prompting, they where brought on the ark in 9:10, and the sign of the rainbow was also for them along with man in 9:12. God certainly cares for his creatures (see better Biblical evidence for this at my link) and we should to.
Interestingly, the word "thing" in Genesis 1:21 ("every living and moving thing" NIV) is nephesh indicating that creatures of this level move. Invertebrates can definitely move (as Mom may testify when she stands on a chair in the kitchen screaming "spider!"). As another example, the word "creatures" in verse 24 of that chapter is the same word (nephesh) and is accompanied by a list: "Living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals" (NIV). In the KJV, the phrase "creatures that move along the ground" is a little more descriptive perhaps: "creeping things." Once again, I would say that insects qualify for nephesh! "Things that move along the ground" are distinctly stated to be of nephesh grouping in Genesis 1:30 (NIV). The seas are full of invertebrates and these too had nephesh life (Genesis 1:20 NIV). In Leviticus 11:46 the word is used again to describe the sorts of creatures described as clean and unclean in the preceding verses, which included "locusts, katydid, cricket or grasshopper [and] winged creatures that have four legs" (verses 22 and 23). The Bible gives absolutely no reason for us to think that invertebrates do not have nephesh life! In fact, as has just been demonstrated, it very clearly points to the contrary.
So, according to the Bible, we have no more right to kill an invertebrate in our yard than we do to kill the robin feeding on them (unless we have legitimate reasons like "It's going to hurt my kid if he touches it"). It is powerful evidence from the Bible that supports a higher standard for viewing the importance of all life.

MISSION: To make the Christian world more conservation aware.

God loves all his creatures, even the ones that seem insignificant (such as sparrows) and He wants us to mimic his love for all creation. My goal is to eliminate the western way of thinking that has little regard for the preciousness of all life; to educate Christians in particular of the value of such things as spiders and snakes and to demolish their religious predisposition against such creatures. We need to understand that the creation is our responsibility to care for by the Genesis mandate, and that we need to manage our natural resources responsibly with respect. Wastefulness and cruelty are unacceptable in light of God’s intentions for the world. Ultimately, I want to tell the world about God’s salvation and show them a life by faith that has a great love, not only for created things, but also for fellow men. The sanctity of life is undermined in today’s cultures and needs to be reinstated. I hope that my passion and enthusiasm for the natural world and the Creator will spur others on to a higher standard of love for life.