vtechworks.lib.vt.edu€¦ · web viewi.e., which things are right, wrong, good, or bad (minteer...

To Appear, Pages 000-000 in D. Chapman and J. Odenkirk, editors. First International Snakehead Symposium, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Socrates Opens a Pandora’s Box of Northern Snakehead Issues

Donald J. OrthDepartment of Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburg, Virginia 24061Email: [email protected]

Phone: 540-231-5919

Abstract

Although the origin, distribution, abundance, and spread of the Northern Snakehead Channa argus in the Potomac River have been studied, management and control plans for other invasive species are increasingly contested in social arenas where stakeholder values differ. Yet, few investigations focus on social or ethical dimensions of the Northern Snakehead. Management actions for Northern Snakehead are currently limited to regulating possession, educating anglers, and encouraging harvest. In this paper I examine ethical questions to guide future decisions and argue for ethical pragmatism and participatory management, which recognize stakeholder values, aim to reduce defensiveness, increases listening, and consciously cultivates a ground of mutual respect and trust among stakeholders, scientists, and managers.

Introduction

Imagine that Socrates, the first moral philosopher, was alive today and was asked “What is the right thing to do in response to the establishment and spread of Northern Snakehead Channa argus in the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay Region?” Socrates practiced ethics by questioning and deliberating over the right thing to do, rather than depending on doctrine. For him, human choice was motivated by a desire for happiness, which was possible through the ability to reason and make choices. Like Socrates, I believe that our personal responsibility to reason and make choices can lead to better policy and governance. Therefore, my purpose here is to explore ethical reasoning to decide the right thing to do in response to appearance and spread of Northern Snakehead in the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay region. Why do we need to include ethical reasoning in our discussion of the Northern Snakehead? Ethics addresses questions regarding how we should live our lives. Environmental or ecological ethics attempts to enlarge the domain of traditional (i.e., human) ethics by extending our moral concern to non-human entities, to individual animals and plants, and to entire ecosystems (Sarker 2012). Questions that need to be addressed with regards to Northern Snakehead include (1) What guiding principle should be employed when determining the rightness or wrongness of actions? And (2) Is there a single guiding principle for determining moral truths, or is there an irreducible plurality of principles? Invoking practical ethics is critically important as it deals with normativity,

1


i.e., which things are right, wrong, good, or bad (Minteer 2012). Ethical arguments adjudicate among values expressed by cultural norms. We need to identify which values and norms to embrace, deliberate over incompatible goals, and following guiding principles for management that are acceptable to all.

Pandora’s box is a metaphor for the Northern Snakehead story. In Greek mythology, gods kept knowledge hidden away from men. Pandora was the first woman created by the gods and she was a curse. Gods offered her many gifts. Zeus gave Pandora a box saying “This is my own special gift to you. But don’t ever open it.” Pandora does open the box and from it flew every trouble known to humanity; strife, sickness, and other ills escaped to afflict men and women forever more. Pandora managed to keep one spirit in the box as she shut the lid. The only thing left was "hope." Pandora’s box is a myth, called a theodicy, which tries to explain why there is evil in the world (Geoghegan 2008). When we go about asking questions about the values associated with the Northern Snakehead, troubles will be released from Pandora’s box — they are the many and divergent opinions of the public that have not been fully exposed.

If we do not anticipate and examine a plurality of human values in the case of Northern Snakehead, we face Cassandra’s dilemma — Cassandra was blessed with the ability to foresee the future but cursed in that no one would believe her (Atkisson 1999). We should foresee that conflicting values will confound management if not explicitly considered. Hope, in the case of Northern Snakehead management, may be found not in foundationalist ethical theories, but in pragmatic ethical frameworks that admit to being fallible as we make and revise management decisions. From a practical perspective, dismissing stakeholders’ views in an emotionally charged environment will almost certainly decrease trust among parties (Wilson 2008). Furthermore, non-participatory planning, such as ‘decide, announce, and defend,’ results in the entrenched tyranny of minority views, prevalence of conflicts of interest, irreconcilable positions, and polarization (López-Bao et al 2017). Ethical pragmatism, however, by recognizing the coexisting core values, aims to reduce defensiveness, increase listening, and to consciously cultivate a ground of mutual respect (Clayton and Myers 2015, p. 155).

I do not focus on whether the Northern Snakehead threatens the natural environment or the economy. Rather, I examine how frameworks, such as value theory, ethical pragmatism, cognitive hierarchy theory, trust theory, and adaptive management, are appropriate guides for management of an invasive species such as the Northern Snakehead. The paper is organized as a series of Socratic questions that introduce these ethical and values frameworks.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

Northern Snakehead is a large, freshwater, piscivorous fish native to China, Amur River and Khanka Lake in Russia, southeastern Siberia, and Korea (Courtenay and Williams 2004). Northern Snakehead was imported to the U.S.A. for the live food-fish market, and unauthorized release of live individuals resulted in its establishment in the Potomac

2


River. Northern Snakehead spread rapidly due to rapid maturation rate, parental care, and broad environmental tolerances (Orrell and Weigt, 2005; Wegleitner et al. 2016; Fuller et al. 2018). Their appearance in a pond in Maryland in 2002 garnered substantial attention from the national media (Dolin 2003). Comedian Jon Stewart reported that “In Crofton, Maryland, environmental officials are combating an exotic species of Chinese fish that is extremely aggressive, always hungry, and has a pair of primitive lungs that allows it to wiggle across land for up to three days.” (Dolin 2003, p 144). Even David Letterman had a “Top Ten Little Known Facts about the Snakehead Fish.” (Dolin 2003, p 147).

Since first detected in the Potomac River in 2004, Northern Snakehead populations have become established in portions of the Potomac River, Chesapeake Bay tributaries, Hudson River, Rappahannock River, and Delaware River basins (Fuller et al. 2018). Additionally, Northern Snakehead was introduced in Arkansas and is spreading following a failed eradication effort (Fuller et al. 2018). High genetic diversity in these populations, high reproductive potential, and extensive protection of offspring, resulted in relatively high long-term effective population size (Resh et al. 2018). Education, enforcement, and harvest strategies have done little to reduce the spread (Love and Newhard 2018; Bunch et al. 2019, this volume).

A draft plan for the Northern Snakehead was developed to “Use the best available science and management tools to prevent the future introduction of snakehead into new areas, contain and, where possible, eradicate newly established and localized populations, and minimize impacts in areas where they are established and eradication is not feasible.” (Snakehead Plan Development Committee 2014, p 50). Despite control efforts in Maryland and Virginia, the species is expanding its range from its original introduction location in the Potomac River (Love and Newhard 2018; Bunch et al. this volume).

Despite laws prohibiting transport of live snakeheads, they are moved to new waters, presumably by sport anglers, although the vectors remain highly uncertain. Many characteristics of the species raised concerns about potential harm to the ecosystem, economy, and human health (Courtenay and Williams 2004; Kusek 2007). Northern Snakehead can breathe air by means of a unique suprabranchial chamber, by which the fish respires at the water’s surface using a cough-like mechanism (Duan et al. 2018). This adaptation permits the fish to survive for more than 20 hours out of water, further aiding its expansion. The ability of Northern Snakehead to “walk” on land (Bressman 2019, this volume) generated alarm -- “If they need to, they are capable of walking short distances (up to 75 yards) on their bellies and fins” (Mason 2003). However, expansion of the range of Northern Snakehead to other tributaries of Chesapeake Bay is facilitated by freshwater inflows and human vectors rather than overland movement (Bunch et al. 2019, this volume). First described as voracious feeders that would eat every other fish, their consumption patterns in the Potomac River are similar to those of Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides (Saylor et al. 2012; Isel and Odenkirk 2019, this volume), which continue to thrive there (Love and Newhard 2012). Nest spawning and guarding behaviors contribute to its potential for exponential population growth (Jiao et al. 2009). A broad adaptability to a wide range of temperature and salinity means that Northern

3


Snakehead have the potential to colonize many waters in North America (Herborg et al. 2007). Rate of expansion may vary by region. Northern Snakehead is expanding from the Potomac introduction (Love and Newhard 2018), but not expanding rapidly in lakes in Queens, New York (Cohen and MacDonald 2016). A lack of societal input itself may be the biggest problem surrounding the issue of Northern Snakehead in the Potomac and Chesapeake Bay regions.

WHAT DO RESEARCH STUDIES ON INVASION SUGGEST?

Three reviews of studies on invasive species are instructive. Jeschke et al. (2012a, 2012b) reviewed empirical studies that examined six major hypotheses in invasion biology. These empirical studies demonstrated that the probability that an introduced species becomes invasive depends on the taxonomic group and habitat in question, not a simple “tens rule” finding. Support for three hypotheses, invasional meltdown (Simberloff and Von Holle 1999), novel weapons (Callaway and Ridenour 2004), and enemy release (Blumenthal et al. 2009), was high whereas support for biotic resistance (Jeschke and Genovesi 2011), tens rule (Jeschke 2008), and island susceptibility (Shea and Chesson 2002) were low and declining over time. Effective policy-making for Northern Snakehead cannot rely solely on general rules from other empirical studies because of the context dependency of effects. Hypothesis generation is ongoing (Ricciardi et al. 2013; Simberloff et al. 2013). A global review of the available evidence leads one to conclude that a very high degree of uncertainty exists. A review by Ricciardi and Ryan (2017) revealed a rise in denialism that was challenged by Sagoff (2018). In the third review of the literature on invasive species, Estévez et al. (2015) reported on the rarity of studies on social dimension of invasive-species issues, a gap previously identified by Lodge and Shrader-Frechette (2003) and Larson et al. (2011).

Studies on the social dimensions of species invasions, though infrequent, expose human values conflicts. The majority (82%) of conflicts identified by Estévez et al. (2015) were derived from value-system disagreements. Consequently, the rise of denialism may indicate alternative ways of thinking (Crowley et al. 2017a; Ricciardi and Ryan 2017, 2018) or definitions of deleterious effects (Jeschke et al. 2014). We need to deliberate in a way that considers that multiple perspectives may be correct. The debate over how to define and deal with invasive species continues with strong views on both sides (Sagoff 2005; Simberloff 2005; Richardson and Riccardi 2013; Russell and Blackburn 2017a, 2017b; Riccardi and Ryan 2017, 2018; Sagoff 2018) and will not be resolved quickly. Yet management plans for Northern Snakehead must be developed and immediately implemented despite anticipated conflict.

WHAT IS “SUCCESSFUL PROBLEM SOLVING” IN THE CONTEXT OF SPECIES INVASIONS?

Management plans for invasive species are successful if their measurable objectives are achieved. However, no measurable objective of performance was explicitly stated in the snakehead management and control plan (SPDC 2014). After an objective is in place,

4


success requires passionate leadership, persistence, partnerships, trust, and strategic optimism. While the first two characteristics are possessed by individuals, the other characteristics require participatory engagement to overcome uncertainty and other obstacles. Basically, trust theory posits that trust develops through repeated interactions between parties, may drive collaborations, reduces harmful conflict, and facilitates management (Stern and Coleman 2015).

A Northern Snakehead management plan, to be effective, must anticipate that the multiple parties involved will have strong opinions and values and, therefore, will most certainly clash over management objectives. One or more parties may assert their interests at the expense of others, leading to an entrenched tyranny of minority views (Redpath et al. 2015). Furthermore, effective control and planning related to biological invasions requires a fair process so all peoples may voice their opinions and cooperate in plan development (Olszanska et al. 2016). A top-down, or DAD (Decide, Announce, and Defend), approach to planning has repeatedly been proven to not address the needs of affected parties (Norton 2005, p 423). Recent research on fair participation demonstrated that increased trust through fairness makes conflict resolution a more likely -- though not a certain -- outcome (Stern and Coleman 2015; Young et al. 2016a; López-Bao et al. 2017).

IS THE NORTHERN SNAKEHEAD INVASIVE?

To develop and enact sensible policies, it is crucial to consider two philosophical questions: (1) What exactly makes a species native or exotic, and (2) What values are at stake? (Woods and Moriarty 2001). Based on human introduction, evolutionary origin, and historical range, Northern Snakehead would qualify as “exotic” but evidence for harm to ecosystem, human health, or the economy amounts to academic speculation in need of critical evaluation (Courtenay and Williams 2004). While ecologists define invasive species based on explosive expansion of population size and range (Lockwood et al. 2013), others define invasive precisely as the determination of harm (Woods and Moriarty 2001; ISAC 2006). Adopting a risk-assessment framework which addresses costs and benefits and multiple criteria is needed by managers (Dana et al. 2014). Five major values are of interest: ecosystem health, biodiversity, naturalness, animal welfare, anthropocentric values of nature (recreational and economic values). Davis et al. (2011) argued that agencies and conservation organizations should base management plans on sound empirical evidence, not on unfounded claims of harm caused by non-natives. Jeschke et al. (2014) further maintained that harm by invasive species must be explicitly and unambiguously defined. Some exotic species may, after naturalization, prove beneficial (Schlaepfer et al. 2011). Explicit definition of harm is a major source of uncertainty with regards to the Northern Snakehead. However, a precautionary approach does not preclude action. “Lack of scientific certainty about the environmental, social and economic risk posed by a potentially invasive alien species or by a potential pathway should not be used as a reason for avoiding preventative action against the introduction of potentially invasive alien species. Likewise, lack of certainty

5


about the long-term implication of an invasion should not be used as a reason for postponing eradication, containment, or control measures.” (Miller and Gunderson 2004, p. 10).

WHAT ARE HARMS AND BENEFITS FROM NORTHERN SNAKEHEAD?

Removing the Northern Snakehead might be considered as a process of ecological restoration, i.e., “assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.’’ (SER 2002). One measure of recovery might be biological integrity. However, the definitions of this term are still debatable. Karr and Dudley (1981, p 55) define biological integrity as ‘‘the capability of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of the natural habitat of the region.’’ In contrast, Cairns (1977, p.171) maintains that ‘‘Biological integrity [is] ... the maintenance of the community structure and function characteristic of a particular locale, or deemed satisfactory to society.’’ The inclusion of the “satisfactory to society” criterion is an important recognition of human values. If one accepts the Karr and Dudley (1981) definition, then a hypothesized negative effect of Northern Snakehead on Largemouth Bass (a non-native fish in mid-Atlantic coast drainages) populations (Love and Newhard 2012) would not influence biological integrity. Rather, the hypothesized influence of Northern Snakehead removal would be the negative economic effect on recreational fishing. The competitive influence of Northern Snakehead on Largemouth Bass remains a hotly debated issue of contention, but Northern Snakehead remain abundant in many places in the Potomac where Largemouth Bass are present (Love and Newhard 2018; Bunch et al. 2019, this volume). Both Largemouth Bass and Northern Snakehead fishing (and bowfishing) remain popular recreational activities. Some vocal snakehead anglers see the snakehead as a valuable resource to conserve via creel or size limits (Mathwin 2018), which runs counter to destruction rules in place (Rice 2016). Biodiversity and species richness measures, as used in many invasion studies, exclude or penalize based on the presence of introduced species (Sagoff 2018). Perhaps we are seeing the beginnings of an alien species helping to revive aquatic-based recreation in a long-ignored part of the Chesapeake Bay (Pearce 2015). Alternatively, harm to human health or ecosystem health may still emerge sometime after fourteen years of population expansion. However, concepts such as threat, risk, damage, and harm are normative and involve value judgments and further study (Slobodkin 2001). A new way of thinking may be needed to more effectively help solve the management challenges surrounding the invasion of Northern Snakehead. Local groups, such as the Virginia Snakehead Hunters, Snakehead Stalkers, Virginia Bowhunters Association, sport anglers (Potomac Snakehead Tournament) and local restaurants have exploited local Northern Snakehead populations for sport and food. Although no studies have explored the benefits from these activities for Northern Snakehead, the idea of eating invasive species to control their populations has become popular (Nuñez et al. 2012). Few incentives have been used to encourage harvest of Northern Snakehead, though educational outreach, surveillance and early detection

6


appear to be positive aspects of harvest programs (Nuñez et al. 2012). A sport fishery, though not promoted, has found a small following of anglers who advocate for permitting catch-and-release fishing (Mathwin 2018). Because harvest is the primary means for control of Northern Snakehead, a demonstrated lack of success may cause snakehead anglers to question the goal, a response that cannot be detected without better public involvement. The curse of popularity may encourage further introductions of Northern Snakehead, as is suspected for other invasive species such as feral hogs (Caplenor et al. 2017) and studies of human attitudes are needed to judge the public support for control programs (Caplenor et al. 2017).

WHAT IS BEING DONE NOW? Northern Snakehead was listed as injurious wildlife under the Federal Lacy Act in 2002 and Rice (2016) summarized available policy actions as (1) indifference, best suited for states not currently threatened by snakeheads; (2) authorized destruction, suited for states with present threat from snakeheads; and (3) compulsory destruction. Regulations vary by state. Maryland requests absolute destruction and advises anglers to "kill it and DO NOT put it back in the water." (Maryland DNR, no date). Virginia asks anglers to report snakeheads kept, and snakeheads in possession must be dead. The Virginia rule is authorized destruction, i.e., killing snakeheads is not absolutely compulsory, but the Department recommends it (Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, no date).

Some anglers and bowfishers are targeting snakeheads in the Potomac River (Heggenstaller 2017). Potential recommended activities that favor an invasivorism approach, such as snakehead roundups and contributions to food banks, have not become popular yet. Because more government involvement in snakehead control generally means requiring different behavior from private individuals, this inevitably gives rise to challenges from individuals who are opposed to complying with the new regulations (Rice 2016, p 977).

Although conflicts exist, they have not been resolved. For example, it is possible for one to challenge a rule requiring automatic killing of snakeheads under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. § 2000b, Rice 2016). In 2017, the Virginia General Assembly increased the penalty for persons illegally moving (stocking) snakeheads to a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to 12 months in jail, a fine of $2500, or both. An additional conflict arises under compulsory destruction rules when anglers are required to remove snakeheads, but the states do not take an active approach to destroying snakeheads and reporting their removals. The principle of transparency requires that the state report their removals and progress toward control.

Additional scrutiny is needed to prevent further spread of Northern Snakehead. Although all snakehead fish can no longer be imported into the U.S. or be transported across state lines without a permit, the effectiveness of penalties on popularity of snakeheads in pet industry and live-fish food market are unknown. Resh et al. (2018) demonstrated high genetic similarity between Potomac River and Philadelphia populations, a finding that is possible only via human-assisted gene flow. The frequency of human-assisted spread of

7


the Northern Snakehead from Potomac River could mean that many states managing via policy indifference might soon become states with concerns.

WHAT VALUES ARE AT STAKE OR IN CONFLICT?

Policy actions inevitably favor one group over another. Uncertainty about Northern Snakehead means we need to adopt policies that admit the possibility of being wrong; these are precautionary approaches (Miller and Gunderson 2004; Norton 2005). Indifference may be an acceptable option for states far removed from the Potomac epicenter. The authorized destruction policy recognizes the values of many sport anglers who have developed a strict ethic of practicing catch-and-release fishing. Compulsory destruction rules may lead to legal challenges and conflict (Rice 2016, p. 982). Catch-and-release anglers and others may be morally opposed to killing a snakehead, even if the fish is invasive and the state specifically wishes to reduce their population. This issue is already dividing stakeholders in this region (Mathwin 2018; see Chapman and Odenkirk, this volume).

Unless and until threats are defined and evident, government agencies will be reluctant to prioritize resources for control of snakehead because there is no basis for judging success of the programs. Ecological effects of a species must be weighed against the ecological effects of removing the species, and the economic costs brought about by exotic species must be weighed against the economic costs of removal and restoration programs. Decisions are often made on pragmatic grounds such as which species are easiest to control, the estimated economic costs of control, and effects alleviated. Value conflicts will continue until Northern Snakehead detrimental effects are no longer labeled as uncertain or data deficient, and instead quantified as minimal, moderate, or major (Blackburn et al. 2014). HOW DO VALUES RELATE TO HUMAN BEHAVIORS?

Miller and Gunderson (2004) and others recognized that “ultimate questions about the law and policy with regard to non-indigenous and invasive species reflect deep value preferences, values that reflect more general philosophical tenets that may border on religious beliefs.” Values are enduring and stable beliefs that form the basis of the cognitive hierarchy framework to understand social perceptions of invasive species (Estévez et al. 2015). Attitudes are supported by one or more values and affected by a person’s perception of risk. Finally, behaviors result directly from cultural norms and attitudes. Authorized destruction policies may result in fewer conflicts than compulsory destruction and future research should adopt the cognitive hierarchy theory framework to examine expected behaviors of individuals and groups in the Northern Snakehead case.

Persons with strong utilitarian values may readily agree and adopt positions for compulsory destruction. However, others with differing values will naturally be in conflict. Compulsory destruction programs, which may have greater likelihood to control Northern Snakehead populations, have three requirements: (1) legal obligation to remove

8


fish from the water permanently; (2) an alternative to killing the fish; and (3) penalties for releasing a captured fish (Rice 2016). The Maryland rule is ambiguous about whether an angler is specifically disallowed from releasing snakeheads that they catch. In not addressing catch-and-release anglers, the Maryland rule has not adequately included catch-and-release anglers in their deliberations (Mathwin 2018). Furthermore, compulsory destruction may open the state to constitutional objections under the Free Exercise Clause (Thomas 2013, p 25-26) that prevents the government from interfering with the lawful, personal exercise of religion (Rice 2016).

HOW CAN WE DEAL WITH MULTIPLE VALUES?

Values and attitudes will influence beliefs and behaviors regarding Northern Snakehead, so each stakeholder may have different preferences. For example, Epstein (2017) mused that “as an environmentalist we should manage all invasive aquatic species, as a scientist we should manage some, and as a humanist we should manage very few.” In a survey of 422 invasion biologists, responses were split regarding the statement “Any characterization that nonindigenous species are good or bad is a value judgment, not science” (49% agreed, 40% disagreed; Young and Larson 2011:895). The context is, therefore, often the determinant of one’s judgement regarding the value of invasive species (Dickman et al. 2015).

From a humanist perspective it is arguable that we should only concentrate on those invasive species that cause economic or ecosystem service net loss. Even here, we can expect conflicts. Rules reduce people’s freedom to catch and release or even keep snakeheads as captive animals. Simberloff et al. (2013) emphasized that invasive species controversies are rooted in divergent ethical frameworks (Callicott 1980). Ecocentrists will focus on ecological attributes or processes, anthropocentrists do not worry about ecological effects unless they drive economic or social damages, and zoocentrists accord equal moral consideration to every living being and oppose eradication plans. While surveys of the values and attitudes of stakeholders in the Northern Snakehead case have not been initiated, we can expect that a variety of perspectives exist.

Some, perhaps most, individuals will be swayed by the importance of universal principles (i.e., foundationalism), but I argue in the context of the Northern Snakehead that a reliance on principle of fallibalism, recognized by ethical pragmatists, is the preferred option. Fallibalism is the philosophical doctrine that absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible, or at least that all claims to knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Fallibalism recognizes the lack of certainty that characterizes other foundational ethics. The limitations of a single ethical principle are becoming obvious as practitioners dealing with invasive species acknowledge and respect multiple values in decision-making (Minteer and Collins 2008; Dana et al. 2014). Because competing ethical principles will be at play, the principle of fair treatment requires that each party to a conflict have sufficient incentive to resolve the dispute (Holland 2015). Furthermore, the treatment of animals has been an emerging value in the code of ethics of professional societies. The code from the Society of Conservation Biology requires its members to “Adhere to the

9


highest standards for treatment of animals used in research in a way that contributes most positively to sustaining natural populations and ecosystems.” (SCB 2004).

Environmental pragmatists believe that the diversity of values should be respected to allow for deliberate, creative conflict mediation and social learning in contrast to some quest for ethical perfection (Sharp et al. 2011; Holland 2015). Tadaki et al. (2017) developed a typology of value concepts and argued that all forms of values provide ways of approaching civic engagement. These four concepts—value as a magnitude of preference, value as contribution to a goal, values as individual priorities, and values as relations—are relevant to examining divergent values in the Northern Snakehead case.

Although there are no social-science studies related to the Northern Snakehead in the Chesapeake Bay region, it is reasonable to expect that values and their importance will differ among individuals or groups adopting differing ethical theories (Kellert 1993,1996). Value orientations will often lie along two contrasting dimensions, labeled as domination and mutualism (Manfredo 2008; Manfredo et al. 2009). Domination refers to value orientations that de-personalizes the wild animal and favors killing, while mutualism views the wild animal as special components of nature or community, deserving rights like humans. Making plans for the Northern Snakehead case without this type of values inventory and understanding seems unwise, reminding us of Cassandra’s dilemma. Cassandra’s dilemma is relevant here if one is silent while knowing that the future will bring conflicts if we do not address the plurality of views in our planning. Furthermore, the process of applied-values research requires explicit exploration of attitudes of local stakeholders and experts in the dynamic decision-making process, where classification of nonindigenous species may change over time (Figure 1).

A management and control plan should develop goals by including multiple social and political stakeholders and analyzing benefits and costs to society (Figure 1). In doing so, we will anticipate how preferred interventions vary among stakeholders with differing values as applied to issues of killing invasive animals (Callicott 1980; O’Neill 1997; Varner 2003, 2008). Each ethical theory will be associated with differing rankings of ‘natural values,’ i.e., those that promote the persistence and increase of non-human biota or enhance non-anthropogenic aspects of the physical environment (Sarker 2012, p. 21). We cannot immediately apply this to the Northern Snakehead without a survey of stakeholder values and ethic perspectives. HOW WILL YOU MANAGE CONFLICTS OVER THE NORTHERN SNAKEHEAD?

Success or failure in environmental problem-solving is often determined by the way a problem is formulated and discussed in public discourse (Norton 2005). If there is inherent disagreement on the formulation of the problem and potential solutions, the likelihood of effective intervention is very low. Soon after the introduction of the Northern Snakehead, conflicts among multiple stakeholders with strongly held positions emerged over differing values and objectives (Rice 2016; see transcript of facilitated

10


discussion, this volume). The choice language used in framing the problems and prevailing discourse (Caballo-Cárdenas 2016; Fisher 2016; Baynham-Herd et al. 2018) may result in polarization, thereby decreasing the likelihood for passion, persistence, partnerships, trust and strategic optimism to develop (López-Bao et al. 2017). Furthermore, the framework of Novoa et al. (2018) recognizes that classifications as inconsequential, desirable, undesirable, or conflict may change over time (Figure 1). Other practitioners dealing with invasive species have developed approaches to anticipate and transcend barriers via conflict interventions to influence behaviors (Estévez et al. 2015; Redpeth et al. 2015; Fisher 2016; Young et al. 2016a, 2016b; Crowley et al. 2017b; Baynhem-Herd et al. 2018). Conflict interventions are effective only when informed by evidence and underpinned by a valid theory of change that describes the logical and ordered sequence of interventions, actions, and outcomes identified during the planning process (Qiu et al. 2018).

Management of biological invasions may be tame or wicked (Woodford et al. 2016). While science is best equipped to deal with tame problems (Rittel and Webber 1973), a disconnect between perception and reality that influences the likelihood of successful management. Northern Snakehead has both benefits and costs to different parties, which lead to conflicts over their use and management (Figure 1). The Northern Snakehead represents a wicked problem in invasive-species management because there is inherent disagreement on the formulation of the problem and its potential solutions, and number and types of stakeholders are high (Woodford et al. 2016). Young et al. (2016b) proposed a conflict-management tool that may be useful in this context. Examining the six stages of conflict management (Table 1) suggests that we need to examine the social dimensions of the Northern Snakehead case with regards to questions at stages two through five. The draft Snakehead plan (SPDC 2014) did not define criteria for judging success of the plan. Among the multiple criteria that should be developed for decision analysis, almost every desirable criterion must compete with cost or other criteria and tradeoffs must be introduced between them (Norton 2005, p. 595; Gregory et al. 2012; Dana et al. 2014). Stakeholder engagement is a dynamic process that must be dialogue-based and include feedback mechanisms that allow stakeholders to assess their engagement. Many general recommendations for moving forward are summarized in recent literature on participatory decision making (Estévez et al. 2015; Redpeth et al. 2015; Fisher 2016; Young et al. 2016a, 2016b; Crowley et al. 2017b; Baynhem-Herd et al. 2018).

HOW SHOULD WE PRIORITIZE SCARCE RESOURCES?

As invading species proceed through a series of stages (i.e., introduction, establishment, spread, and impact), each of these stages presents opportunities for management (Lodge et al. 2016). Although some actions to prevent further introductions and establishment are in place (SPDC 2014), Northern Snakehead populations are still spreading (Love and Newhard 2018; Morelli 2018; Wise 2018; Bunch et al. 2019, this volume) and management agencies in this region need to discuss approaches to limit the spread.

11


McGeoch et al. (2016) emphasized that once an invasive species is established, the focus must move to preventing further spread and protecting high-value sites. As dispersal of the Northern Snakehead continues, budgets to support risk assessment, monitoring, surveillance, and control will remain constrained. Therefore, many actions in the plan (SPDC 2014; Woodford et al. 2016), such as expensive removal actions, will not be implemented and novel approaches may be required. Surveillance and monitoring are important actions in the plan during introduction, establishment, and spread stages (Lodge et al. 2016). Training and engagement of citizen scientists may be cost effective and may help to build trust and create a real-time surveillance system that aids in learning about human-mediated extra-range dispersal (Wilson et al. 2009; Ricciardi et al 2017). These actions also lead to improvements in science literacy and knowledge as well as increased intention to engage in activities (Dickinson et al. 2010; Crall et al. 2012). A new way of thinking is needed for invasive-species problems such as Northern Snakehead (Woodford et al. 2016). A fundamental change in how research is conducted and implemented means that scientists must gain trust of decision makers and citizens. Instead of sending the problem to scientists, we should be working together in the coproduction of knowledge by engaging with those people affected by the problem. Participatory decision-making engages and builds long-term trust among parties (Stern and Coleman 2015; Young et al. 2016a) while maintaining governments accountable to public trust responsibilities (López-Bao et al. 2017). Blurring the lines of authority and separation may allow for practical solutions and ranking the risk of the Northern Snakehead (Norton 2005; Toomey et al. 2016; Bennett et al. 2017). In the process scientists may gain the trust of decisionmakers and citizens. Conflicts should be anticipated by adopting more inclusive citizen participation with the intent of curtailing future spread of Northern Snakehead and overcoming the entrenched tyranny of the minority (Redpath et al. 2015; Crowley et al. 2017b). A top-down education approach ignores differences in social values and risk perceptions (Lute and Gore 2014). Participatory management as applied to other fisheries management concerns may be adopted in some form to manage the Northern Snakehead. The fundamental value of this approach would be that interested parties would not be excluded from meaningful participation in planning and delivery of interventions before conflicts become more destructive (Crowley et al. 2017b). Participatory, also known as community-based, management and full stakeholder participation may lead to accepted rules and responsibilities, enhanced communication, improved surveillance, and trust in governments (Castello et al. 2009; Blythe et al. 2017; Verbrugge et al. 2017). However, this approach will require the intervention of trained facilitator who will examine coexisting core values, reduce defensiveness, increase active listening, and consciously cultivate a ground of mutual respect (Clayton and Myers 2015). Conclusions

12


Here, I have opened Pandora’s box, revealing many unanswered questions. However, I have also called attention to some essential steps to improve future plans. Northern Snakehead is a non-native species and yet evidence supporting the supposition of harm to ecosystem, economy, or human health is lacking even as the populations continue to spread. Conflicts over invasive species arise when top-down, decision-making processes lack participation and transparency, a situation that leads local communities to mistrust government agencies (Estévez et al. 2015). A fundamental shift in approach has great potential if we implement a participatory process that anticipates conflict and is informed by evidence and a valid theory of change (Young et al. 2016a; Qiu et al 2018).

Engaging more stakeholders has several benefits. Any examination of human attitudes about Northern Snakehead will benefit from establishing a broader sampling frame for human attitudes. There is potential to develop a citizen-science capacity to monitor and develop early detection capability and surveillance (Crall et al. 2012; Dickinson et al. 2010). Because of time since introduction and variety of stakeholders with polarized views and unexamined costs and benefits, the Northern Snakehead is a conflict species (Woodford et al. 2016). An open, participatory process is desirable to build trust and control further spread of the Northern Snakehead. Global consensus is building among those working with invasive species that we must acknowledge the legitimacy of the diversity of ethical perspectives and overcome our differences by collectively seeking practical solutions (Norton 2005; Simberloff et al. 2013). Research in invasive-species biology has largely ignored social science and humanities (Estévez et al. 2015). Developing a predictive understanding of the differences between disruptive and innocuous invasions is a major research goal for the field of invasion biology (Ricciardi and Ryan 2018). I remain hopeful with regards to the Northern Snakehead, if we choose to proceed with participatory decision making that builds long-term trust among parties, does not duplicate other fisheries management needs, and maintains accountability to public trust responsibilities. Those left out of the policy process may serve as vectors, undermining legal authorities and moving Northern Snakehead to new waters. We need to examine why some want more Northern Snakehead in their local waters.

Scientists engaged in the Northern Snakehead controversy must use neutral language and beware of any value-laden terminology (Colautti and MacIsaac 2004). As we move forward, scientist must use explicit definitions that are in line with accepted policy. The most common definition in the US is “non-native species that causes harm to the economy, to the environment, or to human health (ISAC 2006), yet definitions of deleterious effects have not been formalized in the Northern Snakehead plan. Catastrophic descriptors that pervaded writings during the first introduction of Northern Snakehead have proven to be hyperbole (Mason 2003). We should not adopt or promote such alarmist and evocative metaphors (Larson 2007, 2011; Lidstrom et al. 2015).

We need to beware of oversimplification. Daniel Kahneman has demonstrated through a long series of psychological experiments how humans substitute complexity and

13


difficulty with easier narratives that better fit existing preferences (Kahneman 2011). The use of terms “invasive” and “alien” can replace slow deliberative thinking that we need with easy fast thinking about native versus nonnative, or good versus evil. Slow deliberative thinking takes a diverse group of stakeholders who are intimately engaged and knowledgeable about complex webs of ecological, economic, and social relations in waters inhabited by Northern Snakehead.

AcknowledgementsAaron Bunch, Leandro Castello, Corbin Hilling, Michael J. Moore, Duane Chapman, and anonymous reviewers helped refine the message. The author was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Program and Virginia Tech University.

References

Angermeier, P.L., and J.R. Karr. 1994. Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives: protecting biotic resources. Bioscience 44(10):690–697

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF). 2012. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Strategic Plan (2013-2017). Accessed July 5, 2018 at https://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/ANSTF%20Strategic%20Plan%202013-2017.pdf

Atkisson, A. 1999. Believing Cassandra: An optimist looks at a pessimist’s world. Chelsea Green, White River Junction, Vermont.

Baynham-Herd, Z., S. Redpath, N. Bunnefeld, T. Molony, and A. Keane. 2018. Conservation conflicts: behavioral threats, frames, and intervention recommendations. Biological Conservation 222:180-188.

Bennett, N.J., R. Roth, S.C. Klain, K.M.A. Chan, D.A. Clark, G. Cullman, G. Epstein, M.P. Nelson, R. Stedman, T.L. Teel, R.E.W. Thomas, C. Wyborn, D. Curran, A. Greenberg, J. Sandlos, and D. Veríssimo. 2017. Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conservation Biology 31:56-66.

Blackburn, T.M., F. Essl, T. Evans, P.E. Hulme, J.M. Jeschke, I. Kühn, S. Kumschick, Z. Marková, A. Mrugała, W. Nentwig, and J. Pergl. 2014. A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS Biol 12(5):e1001850

Blumenthal, D., C. E. Mitchell, P. Pyšek, and V. Jarošik. 2009. Synergy between pathogen release and resource availability in plant invasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 7899–7904.

Blythe, J., P. Cohen, H. Eriksson, J. Cinner, D. Boso, A-M. Schwarz, and N. Andrew. 2017. Strengthening post-hoc analysis of community-based fisheries management through the social-ecological systems framework. Marine Policy 82:50-58.

Bressman, H. 2019, this volume. Effective terrestrial locomotion by the invasive Northern Snakehead. Pages 000-000 in D. Chapman and J. Odenkirk, editors. First International Snakehead Symposium, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

14


Bunch, A.J., J. Odenkirk, M. Isel, C. Boyce, and S. Hermann. 2019, this volume. Spatiotemporal patterns and dispersal mechanisms of Northern Snakehead in Virginia. Pages 000-000 in D. Chapman and J. Odenkirk, editors. First International Snakehead Symposium, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Caballo-Cárdenas, E.C. 2016. Controversies and consensus on the lionfish invasion in the Western Atlantic Ocean. Ecology and Society 20:24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07726-200324

Cairns Jr., J. 1977. Quantification of Biological Integrity. In R.K. Ballentine and L.J. Guarraia, editors. The Integrity of Water. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, pp. 171–187.

Callaway, R.M., and W.M. Ridenour. 2004. Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 436–443.

Callicott, J.B. 1980. Animal Liberation: a triangular affair. Environmental Ethics 4:311–338.

Caplenor, C.A, N.C. Poudyal, L.I. Muller, and C. Yoest. 2017. Assessing landowners’ attitudes toward wild hogs and support for control options. Journal of Environmental Management 201:45-51.

Castello, L., J.P. Viana, G. Watkins, M. Pinedo-Vasquez, and V.A. Luzadis. 2009. Lessons from integrating fishers of arapaima in small-scale fisheries management at the Mamirauá Reserve, Amazon. Environmental Management 43:197-209.

Chapman, D. and J. Odenkirk. 2019, this volume. Transcript of facilitated discussion of Northern Snakehead issues. Pages 000-000 in D. Chapman and J. Odenkirk, editors. First International Snakehead Symposium, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Clayton, S., and G. Myers. 2015. Conservation Psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature. Wiley Blackwell. Oxford, UK.

Cohen, M.K., and J.A. MacDonald. 2016. Northern Snakeheads in New York City. Northeastern Naturalist 23:11-24.

Colautti, R.I., and H.J. MacIsaac. 2004. A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species. Diversity and Distributions 10:135–141.

Courteney, W.R., Jr., and J.D. Williams. 2004. Snakeheads (Pisces, Channidae) -- A biological synopsis and risk assessment. U.S.G.S. Circular 1251. 143 pp.

Crall, A.W., R. Jordan, K. Holfelder, GJ. Newman, J. Graham, and D.M. Waller. 2012. The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Understanding of Science 22: 745-764.

Crowley, S.L., Hinchliffe, S., Redpath, S.M., McDonald, R.A., 2017a. Disagreement about invasive species does not equate to denialism: A response to Russell and Blackburn. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 32:228-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.02.004.

Crowley, S. L., S. Hinchliffe, and R.A. McDonald. 2017b. Conflict in invasive species management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15:133-141.

15


Dana, E. D., J. M. Jeschke, and J. García‐de‐Lomas. 2014. Decision tools for managing biological invasions: existing biases and future needs. Oryx 48:56–63.

Davis, M. A. and K. Thompson. 2000. Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 81:226-230

Davis, M.A., and eighteen coauthors. 2011. Don’t judge species by their origin. Nature 474:153-154.

Dickinson, J. L., B. Zuckerberg, and D. N. Bonter. 2010. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41:149–172.

Dickman, A., P.J. Johnson, F. Van Kesteren, and D.W. MacDonald. 2015. The moral basis for conservation: how is it affected by culture? Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 13: 325–331. doi: 10.1890/140056

Dolin, E.J. 2003. Snakehead: Fish out of water. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. Duan, T., C. Shi, J. Zhou, X. Lv, Y. Li, and Y. Luo. 2018. How does the snakehead

Channa argus survive in air? The combined roles of the suprabranchial chamber and physiological regulations during aerial respiration. Biology Open 7, bio029223. doi:10.1242/bio.029223

Epstein, G. 2017. Invasive alien species management: a personal impasse. Frontiers in Environmental Science 5 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00068

Estévez, R.A., C.B. Anderson, J. C. Pizarro, and M.A. Burgman. 2015. Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conservation Biology 29:19–30.

Fisher, M. 2016. Whose conflict is it anyway? Mobilizing research to save lives. Oryx 50:377–378.

Fuller, P.L., A.J. Benson, G. Nunez, A. Fusaro, and M. Neilson. 2018, Channa argus (Cantor, 1842): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=2265, Revision Date: 3/29/2018, Peer Review Date: 4/1/2016, Access Date: 5/24/2018

Geoghegan, V. 2008. Pandora’s box: Reflections on a myth. Critical Horizons: A Journal of Philosophy and Social Theory 9(1):14-26.

Gregory, R., L. Failing, M. Harstone, G. Long, T. McDaniels, and D. Ohlson. 2012. Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

Heggenstaller, A. 2017. Shots in the dark. NRA American Hunter. Website. https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2017/2/16/shots-in-the-dark/ Accessed on September 21, 2018.

Herborg L. M., N. E. Mandrak, B. C. Cudmore, and H. J. MacIsaac. 2007. Comparative distribution and invasion risk of snakehead (Channidae) and Asian carp (Cyprinidae) species in North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:1723-1735.

Holland, A. 2015. Philosophy, conflict and conservation. Pages 19-32 in S.M. Redpath, R.J. Gutiérrez, K.A. Wood, and J.C. Young, editors. Conflicts in conservation: navigating towards solutions. Cambridge University Press.

16


Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). 2006. Invasive species definition clarification and guidance white paper. National Invasive Species Council. US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2018.

Isel, M.W., and J. Odenkirk. 2019, this volume. Evaluation of Northern Snakehead diets in Virginia rivers and lakes. Pages 000-000 in D. Chapman and J. Odenkirk, editors. First International Snakehead Symposium, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Jeschke, J.M. 2008. Across islands and continents, mammals are more successful invaders than birds. Diversity and Distributions 14: 913–916.

Jeschke, J.M., and P. Genovesi. 2011. Do biodiversity and human impact influence the introduction or establishment of alien mammals? Oikos 120: 57–64.

Jeschke, J.M., L. G. Aparicio, S. Haider, C.J. Lortie, P. Pyšek, and D.L. Strayer. 2012a. Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining. NeoBiota 14(14):1-20.

Jeschke, J. M., L. Gómez Aparicio, S. Haider, T. Heger, C. J. Lortie, P. Pyšek, and D. L. Strayer. 2012b. Taxonomic bias and lack of cross‐taxonomic studies in invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:349–350.

Jeschke, J.M., S. Bacher, T.M. Blackburn, J.T. Dick, F. Essl, and T. Evans. 2014. Defining the impact of non-native species. Conservation Biology 28:1188–1194.

Jiao, Y., N. W. R. Lapointe, P. L. Angermeier, and B. R. Murphy. 2009. Hierarchical demographic approaches for assessing invasion dynamics of nonindigenous species: an example using Northern Snakehead (Channa argus). Ecological Modeling 220:1681–1689.

Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals.

Environmental Management 5: 55–68. Kellert, S.R. 1993. Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife among the

industrial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. Journal of Social Issues 49:53-69.

Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kusek, J.L. 2007. Fishing for a solution: How to prevent the introduction of invasive species such as the snakehead fish. Penn State Environmental Law Review 15: 331-353.

Larson, B.M.H. 2007. An alien approach to invasive species: objectivity and society in invasion biology. Biological Invasions 9:947-956.

Larson, B. 2011. Metaphors for Environmental Sustainability: Redefining our Relationship with Nature. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.

Larson, D. L., L. Phillips-Mao, G. Quiram, L. Sharpe, R. Stark, S. Sugita, and A. Weiler. 2011. A framework for sustainable invasive species management: environmental, social, and economic objectives. Journal of Environmental Management 92:14–22.

17

http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf


Lidstrom, S., S. West, T. Katzschne, M.I. Perez-Ramos, and H. Twidle. 2015. Invasive narratives and the inverse of slow violence: alien species in science and society. Environmental Humanities 7: 1–40. doi: 10.1215/22011919-3616317

Liu, S., A. Sheppard, D. Kriticos, and D. Cook. 2011. Incorporating uncertainty and social values in managing invasive alien species: a deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach. Biological Invasions 13: 2323–2337. doi: 10.1007/s10530-011-0045-4

Lockwood, J. L., Hoopes, M. F., and M. P. Marchetti. 2013. Invasion Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.

Lodge, D. M., and K. Shrader-Frechette. 2003. Nonindigenous species: ecological explanation, environmental ethics, and public policy. Conservation Biology 17:31–37.

Lodge, D.M. and thirty coauthors. 2016. Risk analysis and bioeconomics of invasive species to inform policy and management. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41:453-488. Doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085532

López-Bao, J.V., G. Chapron, and A. Treves. 2017. The Achilles heel of participatory conservation. Biological Conservation 212:139-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.007.

Love, J. W., and J. J. Newhard. 2012. Will the expansion of Northern Snakehead negatively affect the fishery for Largemouth Bass in the Potomac River (Chesapeake Bay)? North American Journal of Fishery Management 32:859–868.

Love, J.W., and J. J. Newhard. 2018. Expansion of Northern Snakehead in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society DOI: 10.1002/tafs.10033

Lute, M.L., and M.L. Gore. 2014. Knowledge and power in wildlife management. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:1060–68.

Manfredo, M. 2008. Who cares about wildlife? Springer Press, New York.Manfredo, M.J., J.J. Vaske, A. Rechkemmer, and E.A. Duke, editors. 2009.

Understanding society and natural resources: Forging new strands of integration across the social sciences. SpringerOpen. New York.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. No date. Northern Snakehead Sightings Distribution. Accessed 13, July 2018 from https://perma.cc/C673-45JD

Mason, M.D. 2003. The saga of the snakehead fish. Natural Resources & Environment 17(4):242-244.

Mathwin, J. 2018. Stop killing the Potomac’s snakehead. Washington Post. Access 13 July, 2018 from https://perma.cc/SJ7G-7AFB

McGeoch, M.A., P. Genovesi, P.J. Bellingham, M.J. Costello, C. McGrannachan, and A. Sheppard. 2016. Prioritizing species, pathways, and sites to achieve conservation targets for biological invasion. Biological Invasions 18:299-314.

Miller, M. L., and L. Gunderson. 2004. Biological and cultural camouflage: The challenges of seeing the harmful invasive species problem and doing something about it. In M. Miller and R. Fabian, editors, Harmful Invasive Species: Legal Responses. Environmental Law Institute Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.452982

18


Minteer, B.A. 2012. Refounding Environmental Ethics: Pragmatism, Principle, and Practice. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 198 pp.

Minteer, B.A., and J.P. Collins 2008. From environmental to ecological ethics: Toward a practical ethics for ecologists and conservationists. Science and Engineering Ethics 14:483-501.

Morelli, D. 2018. Invasive snakeheads found in Susquehanna tributary. Bay Journal Accessed September 19, 2018 at https://www.bayjournal.com/article/invasive_snakeheads_found_in_susquehanna_tributary

Norton, B.G. 2005. Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Novoa, A., R. Shackleton, S. Canavan, C. Cybèle, S. J. Davies, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, J. Fried, M. Gaertner, S. Geerts, C. L. Griffiths, H. Kaplan, S. Kumschick, D. C. Le Maitre, G. J. Measey, A. L. Nunes, D. M. Richardson, T. B. Robinson, J. Touza and J. R.U. Wilson. 2018. A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species. Journal of Environmental Management 205: 286-297

Nuñez, M. A., S. Kuebbing, R. D. Dimarco, and D. Simberloff. 2012. Invasive species: to eat or not to eat, that is the question. Conservation Letters 5(5):334-341.

Odenkirk, J., and S. Owens. 2005. Northern Snakeheads in the tidal Potomac River system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:1605–1609.

Odenkirk, J., and S. Owens. 2007. Expansion of a Northern Snakehead population in the Potomac River system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1633–1639.

Odenkirk, J., and M. W. Isel. 2016. Trends in abundance of Northern Snakeheads in Virginia tributaries of the Potomac River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 145:687–695.

Olszanska, A., W. Solarz, and K. Najberek. 2016. To kill or not to kill – Practitioners’opinions on invasive species management as a step toward enhancing control of biological invasions. Environmental Science & Policy 58:107-116.

O’Neill, O. 1997. Environmental values, anthropocentrism, and speciesism. Environmental Values 6(2):127–142.

Orrell, T. M., and L. Weigt. 2005. The northern snakehead Channa argus (Anabantomorpha: Channidae), a nonindigenous fish species in the Potomac River, USA. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 118:407–415.

Pearce, F. 2015. The new wild: Why invasive species will be nature’s salvation. Beacon Press. 265 pp.

Qiu, J., E.T. Game, H. Tallis, L.P. Olander, L. Glew, J.S. Kagan, E.L. Kalies, D. Michanowicz, J. Phelan, S. Polasky, J. Reed, E.O. Sills, D. Urban, and S.K. Weaver, S.K. 2018. Evidence-based causal chains for linking health, development, and conservation actions. Bioscience 68:182–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix167.

19


Redpath, S.M., S. Bhatia, and J.C. Young. 2015. Conflicts in conservation: Navigating towards solutions. Cambridge University Press.

Resh, C.A., M.P. Galaska, and A.R. Mahon. 2018. Genomic analyses of Northern snakehead (Channa argus) populations in North America. Peer J 6:e4581; DOI 10.7717/peerj.4581

Ricciardi, A., M.F. Hoopes, and M.P. Marchetti. 2013. Progress toward understanding the ecological impacts of nonnative species. Ecological Monographs 83:263-282.

Ricciardi A., and sixteen coauthors. 2017. Invasion science: a horizon scan of emerging challenges and opportunities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 32:464–474

Ricciardi, A., and R. Ryan 2017. The exponential growth of invasive species denialism. Biological Invasions 20:549-553. DOI 10.1007/s10530-017-1561-7

Ricciardi, A., and R. Ryan. 2018. Invasive species denialism revisited: response to Sagoff. Biological Invasions 20:2731–2738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1753-9

Rice, J. 2016. The snakehead war: Administrative rule-making and legislative strategies to minimize destruction by the Northern Snakehead. William & Mary Law and Policy Review 40(3): 965-987.

Richardson, D.M., and A. Ricciardi. 2013. Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field guide. Diversity and Distributions 19:1461–1467

Rittel, H.W.J., and M.M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4:155-169.

Russell, J. C., and T. M. Blackburn. 2017a. Invasive alien species: denialism, disagreement, definitions, and dialogue. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 32:312–314. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2017.02.005

Russell, J. C., and T. M. Blackburn. 2017b. The rise of invasive species denialism. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 32:3–6. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.012

Sagoff, M. 2005. Do non-native Species threaten the natural environment? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18:215-236

Sagoff, M. 2018. Invasive species denialism: a reply to Ricciardi and Ryan. Biological Invasions 20:757 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1752-x

Sarker, S. 2012. Environmental Philosophy: From theory to practice. Wiley-Blackwell, 226 pp.

Saylor, R.K., N.W.R. Lapointe, and P.L. Angermeier. 2012. Diet of non-native northern snakehead (Channa argus) compared to three co-occurring predators in the lower Potomac River, USA. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 21:443-452.

Schlaepfer, M.A., V.F. Sax., and J.D. Olden. 2011. The potential conservation value of non-native species. Conservation Biology 25:428-437.

Sharp, R.L., L.R. Larson, and G.T. Green. 2011. Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biological Conservation 144:2097-2104.

Shea, K., and P. Chesson. 2002. Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 170–176.

Simberloff, D. 2005. Non-native species DO threaten the natural environment! Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18:595-607.

Simberloff D., and B. Von Holle. 1999. Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biological Invasions 1: 21–32.

20

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1753-9

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1753-9


Simberloff, D., J-L. Martin, P. Genovesi, V. Maris, D.A. Wardle, J. Aronson, F. Courchamp, B. Galil, E. Garcia-Berthou, M. Pascal, P. PyŠek, R. Sousa, E. Tabacchi, and M. Vilà. 2013. Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28:58-66.

Slobodkin, L.B. 2001. The good, the bad and the reified. Evolution & Ecology Research 3:1–13

Snakehead Plan Development Committee (SPDC). 2014. Draft National Control and Management Plan for Members of the Snakehead Family (Channidae). Submitted to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. https://www.anstaskforce.gov/Species%20plans/SnakeheadPlanFinal_5-22-14.pdf Accessed July 5, 2018.

Society for Conservation Biology. 2004. Code of Ethics. Accessed 11 July, 2018 from https://conbio.org/about-scb/who-we-are/code-of-ethics

Society for Ecological Restoration Science & Policy Working Group (SER). 2002. The SER primer on ecological restoration. www.ser.org/

Stern, M.J., and K.J. Coleman. 2015. The multidimensionality of trust: application in collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 28:117-132.

Tadaki, M., J. Sinner, and K. M. A. Chan. 2017. Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts. Ecology and Society 22(1):7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08999-220107

Thomas, K.R., Editor. 2013. The constitution of the United States: analysis and interpretation. Accessed 10 July 2018 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013.pdf

Toomey, A.H., A.T. Knight, and J. Barlow. 2016. Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. Conservation Letters 10:619-625. doi: 10.1111/conl.12315

Varner, G. E. 2003. Can Animal Rights Activists Be Environmentalists? Pages 95-113 in A. Light and H. Rolston III, editors. Environmental Ethics: An Anthology Carlton, Australia: Blackwell Publishing.

Varner, G. E. 2008. Utilitarianism and the evolution of ecological ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 14:551-573. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9102-5.

Verbrugge, L.N.H., W. Ganzevoort, J.M. Fliervoet, and K. Panten. 2017. Implementing participatory monitoring in river management: The role of stakeholders’ perspectives and incentives. Journal of Environmental Management 195:62-69.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. No date. Northern Snakehead. https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/snakehead/ accessed December 10, 2018 Wegleitner, B. J., A. Tucker, W. L. Chadderton, and A. R. Mahon. 2016. Identifying the

genetic structure of introduced populations of Northern Snakehead (Channa argus) in eastern USA. Aquatic Invasions 11:199–208.

Wilson, R.S. 2008. Balancing emotion and cognition: a case for decision aiding in conservation efforts. Conservation Biology 22(6):1452‐1450.

Wilson, J.R.U., E.E. Dormontt, P.J. Prentis, A.J. Lowe, and D.M. Richardson. 2009. Something in the way you move: dispersal pathways affect invasion success. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:136-144.

21

https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/snakehead/

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08999-220107

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08999-220107


Wise, S. 2018. Predatory snakehead discovered in Colonial Heights reservoir. WTVR News Website. Accessed 10 July, 2018 from https://wtvr.com/2018/05/04/snakehead-fish-lakeview-reservoir/

Woods, M., and P. Moriarty. 2001. Strangers in a strange land: The problem of exotic species. Environmental Values 10:163-191.

Wegleitner, B.J., A. Tucker, W.L. Chadderton, and A.R. Mahon. 2016. Identifying the genetic structure of introduced populations of northern snakehead (Channa argus) in Eastern USA. Aquatic Invasions 11(2):199-208.

Woodford, D. J., D.M. Richardson, H.J. MacIsaac, N.E. Mandrak, B.W. van Wilgen, J.R.U. Wilson, and O.L.F. Wey. 2016. Confronting the wicked problem of management biological invasions. NeoBiota 31:63-86.

Young, A. M., and B. M. H. Larson. 2011. Clarifying debates in invasion biology: a survey of invasion biologists. Environmental Research 111(7):893-898.

Young, J.C., K. Searle, A. Butler, P. Simmons, A.D. Watt, and A. Jordan. 2016a. The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biological Conservation 195:196-202.

Young, J.C., D.B.A. Thompson, P. Moore, A. MacGugan, A. Watt, and S.M. Redpath. 2016b. A conflict management tool for conservation agencies. Journal of Applied Ecology 53:705-711.

22


Table 1. Six stages in conflict management and associated questions (Young et al. 2016b)____________________________________________________________________

Stage of conflict Associated Questions____________________________________________________________________

One Is there a conflict?Two Is the context of the conflict understood?Three Is a multi-stakeholder process for conflict management

required and/or suitable?Four Is there a joint understanding of the conflict and its

evidence base?Five Is there a shared goal and agreed process toward reaching

this goal?Six Is monitoring in place?

____________________________________________________________________

23


Figure 1. Classification of nonindigenous species based on their potential benefits and costs for society. Arrows indicate potential category changes for a particular species over time (adapted from Novoa et al. 2018).

24