I read the first article you linked. If it represents the current state of research, then better research is indeed justified. The article discussed earlier research on the foraging habits of muskrats, but that research doesn’t sound like it was very conclusive, and I have to wonder whether any attempt has been to explore whether it impacts their lodge-building. The lodges I see are generally made predominantly of cattail, and I know loosestrife stems don’t have the same sort of structural properties. But it doesn’t really refute the idea that loosestrife is damaging. It just calls into question the level of research showing that it’s damaging.

What I’ve seen in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that loosestrife is not invasive and doesn’t impact cattails. I remember when those fens were solid cattail. They’re not now, and the loosestrife does block out cattails; you can tell because they green up at different rates in the spring, and look very different in the winter when they’ve died back. There are big swaths of loosestrife, with a thin fringe of cattail around the edges.

I do agree with the article’s conclusion that we should be very cautious about biological control. I tend to be very wary of biological control in general, because past history has shown that it tends to follow the law of unintended consequences.

Because the local cattail populations would beg to differ; where it becomes established, the cattails disappear from all but the wettest margins.

You mean these cattails?

Purple loosestrife is considered a major pest in my neck of the woods

But is it?

The implications of accepting untested hypotheses: a review of the effects of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America
Is purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) an invasive threat to freshwater wetlands? Conflicting evidence from several ecological metrics
Wetland vegetation before and after experimental purple loosestrife removal
Relationship between the abundance ofLythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) and plant species richness along the Bar River, Canada

The first paper, especially is worth reading. Also note that I am not pretending to have done anything like a thorough lit review. Anyway, the real question is, is it enough of a pest, and are control measures effective enough to justify the expense of trying removing it? My hearsay understanding is that the hunter advocacy organisation Ducks Unlimitted, in an effort to rebrand themselves as a conservation focused organisation (not to knock them, they do a lot of conservation work) hit upon Loosestrife as a flagship issue to advocate and they were instrumental in getting the ball rolling on that. Other organisations of various stripes took up the cause and billions of dollars were spent in promoting and pursuing Loosestrife control. My understanding is that there were/are probably much better uses for all that money and volunteer effort.

There are some cases where exotic species become widespread yet don’t seem to have serious negative effects and there have been serious misalocations of conservation resources because of this sort of confusion (e.g. Purple Loosestrife).

This comment piqued my interest. Purple loosestrife is considered a major pest in my neck of the woods, and I’m wondering — are you saying that purple loosestrife does not actually have serious negative effects? Because the local cattail populations would beg to differ; where it becomes established, the cattails disappear from all but the wettest margins. Since there are animals which depend on the cattails, this is more than just a botantical problem.

It is also important to understand the politics/ethos of herpetology. There are herpetologists that take a favourable view of the pet trade in general – most herpetologists developed their interest in part through keeping exotic reptiles and amphibians. Many, if not most, currently keep various exotic reptiles at home. They acknowledge problems with the trade but prefer to deal with them through promoting “responsible pet ownership” and “responsible pet dealers and breeders” rather than through restrictive regulations that “punish responsible pet owners” because of the actions of a few ‘bad apples’. For some reason, many feel that a major release of pets during a disaster reflects less poorly on the industry than multiple releases over time by individual pet owners. They also feel (rightly in my opinion) that the stated rationales for the recent ban on some large constrictors reflects a prejudice against snakes and political convenience that exploits public misconceptions rather than an objective approach to managing invasive species. The major sources of invasive species is transoceanic shipping, horticulture, the sport fishing industry, and even other parts of the pet trade. If you go to the everglades now you will see habitat dominated by Tilapia and Walking Catfish (aquaculture), Oscars, Mollies, several species of armoured catfishes (aquarium trade), Water Hyacinthe, Brazillian Pepper Bush (horticulture), and Melaleuca (actually imported for the purpose of destroying the glades) Brown Anoles, several species of Hemidactylus house geckoes, Greenhouse Frogs, Cuban Treefrogs (stoways from shipping), etc. So the focus on large constrictors does come across as odd, especially a nation-wide shipping ban. So anyway there is a lot of general pushback and a lot of cynicism towards U.S. Fish and Wildlife (part of that fueled by a potential distribution map for *Python molurus* that most think is ill-conceived, inacurate, and some suggest was politically motivated). What I am trying to get at, is that I don’t have anything particular to say about Heflick but in general when reading about invasive Burms it’s best to be pretty skeptical. Hopefully it will all shake out with the collection of more and better data.