Feds pour millions into Massachusetts to stem dreaded tree-killing beetle invaders

To be more correct, I should have said "nature's ability to do whatever it pleases, because we keep screwing up". We opened the door to this infestation in multiple ways. We imported the beetle (and continue to import it) from China. They had so much of it that it got into export trade because of how they planted some of its favorite food in one area to prevent deforestation. Then, if you look at the trees that it likes here in New England, they're only there because they grew in after we chopped all of the original trees down in colonial times and these hardwoods are what grew up instead. You can read a good comprehensive history and description of what we're up against in this article from the Smithsonian. Near the end, the author takes the exact tack I'm trying to describe. We do things, as a part of "nature", and this beetle came along for the ride, as a part of "nature". The result is that it wants to spread as far as it can and we want it to stop spreading. That's just a losing battle in my book. We're going to expend tons of effort to try and control a flying beetle from flying outside of a 60 mile circle. All the while, we continue to find it in new shipments from its original home and hope that nobody gets firewood from Worcester and burns it in Vermont.

We should be working harder to find a way AROUND this problem and not attempting to rein it in fruitlessly. The beetle has a 20+ year advantage on us and could easily be in all of the places we don't want it to go to but we just haven't had the time/energy/ability to find it there yet. I did find a better link than the USDA press release that pointed out inoculation with pesticides is possible to help protect surrounding trees. It doesn't sound like it's something that would be permanent, like a vaccination of the trees, but would be refreshed to maintain a transient barrier of uninhabitable trees to constrain beetle exposure. So, why not try for something closer to a vaccination? Something that could slow-release into the trees and prevent the egg-laying from taking effect? That's the sort of approach that's going to work, if at all, instead of praying that you chopped up ever last tree the beetle took shelter in...and then what? Pray that it never shows up again? Or are we going to do this search-and-destroy every time the beetle shows up? A $40M band-aid against nature's relentless pest assault.

We don't have to sit back and watch, only that whether we do or not, nature will still progress on regardless. We also have plenty of ways to get involved that are harmful, it's a strawman to say that I implied we couldn't *harm* the environment or that we aren't a cause of damage to the environment. I didn't say that. So, don't put those words in my mouth or equate my position to anything about Sarah Palin.

The question is whether what we do to try and defend things like our timber industry, or whether the leafers will still want to come to New Hampshire if we lose all of our Red Maples, will have any final impact on the ability of the beetles to spread now that we've ignorantly brought them here. Whether a greater portion of that money spent on trying to contain an insect population couldn't have been spent on finding a better way to proactively stop it instead of reactively kill it.

Let me put it this way: if the ALB takes over most of the northern woods in the next 15 years, was this $40M well spent now? How likely are we to having it slip past us before we can contain it fully so that it takes over these woods within 15 years?