Stewardship or Interference?

As part of my research for the upcoming Northern Forest presentation I've been looking into the presence of invasive species in the Adirondacks. One thing I stumbled upon is that the removal strategy for some invasive species (not geographically limited to the Adirondacks) is either introducing predator species to control invasive populations or using insecticide. These two approaches struck me both as problematic and paradoxical. It seems unwise to introduce non-native predator species because, while they might not disrupt the ecosystems in computer models, it's impossible to predict with 100% certainty how the introduction of a new species will play out in the long-term. While the new predators may control the original invasive population, it is not far fetched to think that the predators might become an invasive specie itself. The other elimination strategy is widespread use of insecticide, an approach that carries with it a while other host of problems, like runoff and consequent contamination of surrounding water systems as well as non-specific killing of insects other than the target invasive.

What's paradoxical about this is that we as humans are trying to help the ecosystem by eradicating harmful invasive species (that we ourselves most likely introduced to the area in the first place) when our solutions/meddling in the ecosystem might end up harming it anyway. Despite trying to do good by the environment, it's still likely that we negatively affect the natural systems in place--something I think is important to keep in mind when we learn about the ecology of the Adirondacks. While humans can often have the best intentions in helping the environment, it's also important to remember that many ecosystems have built-in buffer systems and that small disturbances can actually be helpful in maintaining an ecosystem. Ultimately, I think that there's a fine line between stewardship and interference--and it's not always easy to know where one ends and the other begins.

This article speaks closely to what I'm talking about here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1004_051004_beetles.html