Misapplication of the term “nativist” seems to be a common trope for those irritated by habitat restoration projects. In northern California, we have a problem that well-intentioned landowners of the 19th and 20th centuries planted large stands of Eucalyptus globulus. These blue gum trees have shaded out most of the native vegetation below them and created dark monoculture forests that are also alarmingly prone to fire. The species also resprouts energetically from the stumps of felled trees.
Land managers and fire agencies have come up with lots of careful plans to cut back or thin Eucalyptus and replace it with a more diverse mix of native vegetation that will support a richer native ecosystem. Unfortunately, the Eucalyptus have been present long enough that people grew up with these forests and have a strong attachment to them. (Admittedly, they look impressive and smell great.) This has made for some vitriolic verbal attacks on city planners and anyone else that chooses to speak in favor of restoration projects.
The general line is that proponents of habitat restoration projects have a “nativist agenda” in which supporting native wildlife somehow equates to intolerance for immigrants. As an immigrant myself, and one with rather progressive political views, it’s quite frustrating to be painted as a xenophobe by people trying to sway the views of a parks superintendent or county supervisor.
One consolation is that these people can sometimes undermine themselves with their own hyperbole. I remember listening at a public meeting to an impassioned denunciation of the “nativist agenda”. The speaker ended with a confident statement that our region’s frequent fog turned Eucalyptus stands into “cloud forests” that were impervious to wildfire. I got the impression that the decision makers were very aware of just how flammable Eucalyptus have proven in local wildfires and were unlikely to give the speaker’s opinions on “nativism” much credence either.
But I think the success of this myth of a “nativist agenda” highlights the ongoing need to communicate the reasons behind every restoration project and the benefits that people will see. If the majority of people can be convinced that they’ll like the results of restoration, the ridiculousness of equating native species with “nativist” politics will be self-evident.