The overall public opinion of invasive species is that they cause harm, because almost all the information given to the public is negative. In a survey done by Anke Fischer and the James Hutton Institute, the general consensus of the public was, "that all non-native species are considered harmful, and thus require management" (Fischer 3-9). .
Also, according to this article, it is common knowledge within the professional world that not all non-native species will cause harm to the environment. This is proof that most of the information being supplied to the public is biased on this topic. Invasive is an evil world to us, when it really shouldn't be at all. Because the public opinion is biased, the treatment of invasive species is biased as well. According to the ecologist Mark Davis, nativeness is not a sign of evolutionary fitness or of a species having positive effects. In fact, the insect that is killing the most trees in America is the native mountain pine beetle, or Dendroctonus ponderosae. Why isn't the native mountain beetle being exterminated then? Well, because it is a native species. It is a question of morals, should these insects be sacrificed to save the tree population? Or should the tree population be left to suffer? Is it even up to humans to decide the fate of things in nature? Why is it okay to destroy an invasive population but let a destructive native species live on? .
Yes, it is true that many invasive species have caused harm. For example, Zebra mussels have cost the United States millions of dollars, because they clogged a lot of pipes. They're also overtaking lakes and rivers causing damage and overpowering the already existing native species (Davis 153–154). What about the invasive species that is not causing harm, but being destroyed anyway? Take for example, the effort to remove the plant species Martynia annual, or the Devils claw. It was brought from Mexico to Australia in the early 1900s.
