Not being American, I have no idea of the legal basis for this. It is really not relevant to your topic, though.
This, on the other hand, strikes me as a very bad and immoral idea. Because of your anger over some government policy, you’d take it out on everyone by doing the most damage you can? If they were searching cars for bombs, would you blow up a daycare? :smack:
If you’re not American, you can’t appreciate how much it goes against our ethos to search people prospectively like that.
And there’s another analogy for me to reject. I hardly think that putting some plants or critters in the forest is commensurate with blowing up a daycare. It’s not even commensurate with bulldozing a lot to build an ugly McMansion. Biomass is not reduced. And recall that I *like *the idea of letting plants and critters from all over the world “duke it out” in a sort of World Cup of evolution, to prove who is the fittest.
Is this thread about the environment, or American exceptionalism? 
What you see as a harmless, even laudable activity, others would see as deliberiate sabotage - causing more damage by many orders of magnitude than “building an ugly McMansion”.
Would you be okay with introducing agricultural or forest pests? Something like the Asian Long-Horn Beetle, perhaps? Allegedly, if unchecked, it could destroy up to 1/3 of existing US forests.
I’m sure the people who depend on those forests in various ways would be delighted to hear that, to you, this is a good outcome.
Border inspections for invasive species are motivated to protect AGRICULTURE. Because – as has been mentioned half a dozen times in this silly thread – our agriculture is almost entirely non-native monoculture, and therefore extremely vulnerable to invasive species.
Your complaint that border inspection to preserve biodiversity or whatever being “un-American” is ridiculous, because that’s not why the inspection occurs. Inspections occur so that we can sustain the UNdiverse agriculture to feed ourselves, without some bozo bringing in an uncontrolled fruit fly that could wipe out the California fruit harvest or wine business.
Any personal liberties you feel are being trampled by border searches are at the behest of Big Business so they can make more money. And that’s about as “American” as it gets.
There have been invasions of “foreign” species in the past, such as the Great American Interchange. The problem today is the speed with which they’re taking place – it’s literally unnatural.
If each new invasion happened only once, and then things were allowed to reach equilibrium, it might not be too bad. But theoretically the pace of human-introduced invasions can in some cases go back-and-forth faster than the ecological balance, or even evolution itself, can adapt.
And while I don’t like infringement of basic freedoms either, it seems like there’s a LOT more pressing issues with preserving basic American rights and freedoms than fruit smuggling. And of course, if California wants to keep invasive species out, they have to make the searches mandatory. If you think 100% of people will know about, think about, and obey laws meant for the safety of all, even when it’s in their own immediate self-interest, you haven’t seen us drive.
Sailboat, the same argument could be used in service of getting rid of the Fourth Amendment more generally. Most people violating the law are going to try to conceal it; if the police don’t have to worry about probable cause or getting warrants, they could catch a lot more crooks. But that’s not the country I want to live in.
I guess in part, it’s about both. The U.S. does actually have better environmental policies than most other countries, despite having been pretty terrible in that regard a half century ago.
Weren’t you just complaining about one if them being “anti-American”?
UN-American. As in, it is an exception, that goes against the grain of American values, and which I expect to eventually be struck down as unconstitutional.
Nothing is un-American except in the sense of being foreign, and most things American are foreign.
Well, you can have fun with your own special definition of “un-American”; but Dictionary.com defines it as:
The second sense (“not characteristic of or *proper *to the U.S.”) is the one I was using.
Right… That’s a responsible and mature answer. And if a policeman searches your car, what? Shoot the windows out of the police station? If a fire inspector examines your house for fire dangers…you set fire to city hall?
California has inspection stations inside its borders. They ask if you’re bringing in plants, animals, etc.
I’m against all searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant, whether for fire inspections or anything else. But this is really a side issue. To get back to the main point:
Yes, humans are always going to be actively or passively managing the environment one way or another. But just as you have the right to advocate doing all this stuff to rearrange what flora and fauna are found within a certain region’s ecosystem, why aren’t I free to advocate “never mind that, let’s just try to shut down coal plants, stop blowing off the tops of mountains and dumping them in streams, get mercury out of the fish, and tryi to leave some green space without roads, houses, etc.”?
You can advocate whatever you want. Is anyone arguing against your freedom to advocate a position?
My point is a pretty simple one: deciding to deliberately abdicate responsibility to actively and conciously manage invasive species as a policy does not eliminate human interference in the “natural” flora and fauna: it simply provides free reign to passive and unconcious human management.
I have yet to be persuaded that unconcious and passive management will produce a better outcome than concious and active management.
I’m an American, and I think you’re over-reacting to a ridiculous degree.
As Malthus notes, you are free to advocate those things. I do too! I think probably most of us here – a very solid majority – advocates those things, and takes them into consideration when voting.
I also agree with Malthus that the course of greatest wisdom is to try to manage the environment intelligently. Now, sometimes, the best approach to this might be to let the land take care of itself! We don’t have to micro-manage every copse, grove, and weed-patch! The environment is very good at self-regulating, and we can leave a lot of decisions to mother nature.
Some decisions, however, are best made by human intelligence. Nature is very rough and ragged, very cruel, in its self-balancing. Nature thinks nothing of letting entire populations of moose and deer starve to death. We humans have a different moral compass, and try to prevent that – even if it is by the bloody method of opening a hunting season.
We have intelligence; not to use it is dangerous folly. The horrifying fact is, yes, we will make mistakes. We can learn from them.
Which illustrates why it’s fortunate that it is not too easy to amend the Constitution. There are far too many people like you who would be willing to give away the civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights for some small perceived benefit or other.
There are a lot of great answers above, but the simplest answer is IMHO the biggest:
Change causes upset
When you introduce something new into an ecology and it happens to have an advantage, it makes a big change to the local ecology, and the results are unpredictable. A new predator without a native enemy can flourish as it eats the prey, until there are no prey left, after which the predator population declines rapidly (either entirely, or it shifts to a new niche, a new prey). Meanwhile, the prey population is gone, which affects other populations, sometimes dramatically. It’s easy to get a domino effect, and the result is an ecology that changes rapidly for quite some time until it reaches a new equilibrium.
Meanwhile, anything that lives in the ecology is at risk, including us. I don’t mean our survival is at risk, but aspects of our economy and comfort and leisure activities may be.
From one point of view, man’s introducing a new species into an ecology is no different than a natural accident doing so (such as a raft of land animals arriving on an island.) The new species is either successful or it’s not, and eventually, things get worked out. However, in the meantime, a lot of species can get wiped out. If humans live there, they might depend on some of those species.
But a big difference between natural accidents and human-caused introductions is the rate and scope. Likewise, the rate and scope of ecological upheaval will be great.
In the long run, things will definitely play out. But in the meantime, it makes perfect sense for us to do whatever is reasonable to avoid rapid and possibly deleterious (and definitely unpredictable) changes to local ecologies.
This is true regardless of how much of a tree-hugger you are, or how much you thing biodiversity is valuable (with which I certainly agree). It’s the “conservative” thing to do, using that term based on its generic meaning, that is, someone who doesn’t want to try something new and likely to be risky, without a very comprehensive argument in favor. (Please forgive my using a noun definition for an adjective, for brevity.)
BTW, around these parts we see acres of undeveloped land covered by kudzu.
I’m all for those who combat the encroachment of this ugly plant, which turns everything it spreads to into a morbid wasteland. No doubt the best we can do is retard the inevitable, but that’s better than letting it happen as fast as possible.
Whereas I think throwing together some different kinds of critters and seeing what happens sounds like an interesting experiment. (I would totally throw in some dough if someone had a Kickstarter project where they were going to do a special kind of park where they took Siberian tigers, polar bears, lions, and wolfpacks, and threw them in with some bison herds and just let everyone go to town and film it all.)
Whatever gave you that idea?