Just as hollow logs are not submarines, Invasive Species do NOT threaten biodiversity. By definition, Invasive Species are newly arrived plants or animals and unless they make two or more plants or animals totally extinct (an unlikely and statistically remote possibility) they INCREASE BIODIVERSITY. This is so entirely self-evident that no further explanation is required.

So what is going on here? Is this a simple mistake? Could there be a hidden agenda at play? How could all these "experts" (professors, bureaucrats, politicians, activists, and reporters to whom we defer on such matters) make such a mistake?

The answer is that it is no mistake and the hidden agenda exceeds the invisibility of a bathysphere going for a new depth record. Allow me to translate.

Biodiversity has nothing to do with the number of species present (the dictionary definition of "diversity"); biodiversity means the species of plants and animals that the elite power brokers say should be present. This is often described as the NATIVE species of any given area from a swale to a continental coast. NATIVE SPECIES can mean those "there" before statehood, or before Lewis and Clark, or before 1776, or before Europeans arrived (in the present US or the present North America), or before "10,000 years ago" (the mythical "arrival of Asians, i.e. the current "Native" Americans), or species "introduced by 'man'" (women?), or some other term that serves the purpose of some professor in search or a grant or a bureaucrat in search of money or a politician in search of your vote or the environmental/animal rights organization implementing their radical agendas.

Why would they all say "biodiversity" when they don't mean "diversity"? Because if they (those mentioned previously) were to buy land, ease land, spend billions, eliminate all manner of human activity and freedoms, and increase Federal power to increase or restore "Native Species" they would never get away with it. We all understand "Native species" as those that have been around for a length of time and we all benefit from introduced or "invasive species (wheat, Herefords, brown trout, pheasants, most landscaping plants, roadside plantings, all the honey bees, etc., etc. - I could list hundreds of such beneficial "invasive" species) so we would never give the Federal government carte blanche to eradicate (more likely endlessly "control") such species. But when the mysterious "biodiversity" of the "ecosystem" is "threatened" why the sky is the limit. New Federal authority to replace State Constitutional jurisdiction, Federal funding, bureaucratic growth, "scientific" grants, government land acquisition, new Federal regulations on everything from horseback riding to hunting closures cannot be generated too soon to "save" our "precious" ecosystem.

If they said "harmful" species instead of "invasive" species our "usual suspects" would at least be truthful. Whenever "invasive" species are mentioned we are shown picture of kudzu hanging from southern trees or brown tree snakes eating birds in Guam. While their concern for our "ecosystem" is touching, their avowed purpose is to transfer management authority over all plants and animals ("controlling" the "invasive species" and restoring the "native species") from State jurisdiction to Federal jurisdiction. This, in effect, means all the species not on the Endangered/Threatened Lists or named on some international treaty that we have signed and therefore currently under State jurisdiction.