I follow a lot of different publications and social media regarding the outdoors, especially here in the Keystone State. One of the benefits of the Internet is the ability to access so much information quickly, all from the comfort of your living room.

Whether it is a hunting forum from the northcentral or an article about fishing in the Delaware, they are right there at my fingertips. Unfortunately, this also allows for the spread of misinformation, and after enough shares or likes, this misinformation takes on the appearance of the truth.

Such is the case with the debate about non-native vs. invasive species.

The terms are often used interchangeably as if they are equal. This leads readers to believe that both are equally harmful or, even worse, equally safe for our native environment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Non-native species are, as the name suggests, animals, fish or plants that do not naturally occur in an area. Occur because they have been introduced in an area either accidentally or intentionally. Many people do not even realize that some species they are accustomed to seeing are non-native. Rainbow trout, pheasants and even cows are considered non-native.

Invasive species are non-native species that have been introduced either accidentally or intentionally. They also harm the environment, plants, animals and human health. Species commonly found in Pennsylvania include gobies, wild boars and zebra mussels. Each has caused untold damage to crops, infrastructure and natural resources.

So what is the big deal? Why is it a problem if people misidentify non-native and invasive species? After all, isn’t it a matter of perception whether a species is invasive or simply non-native? No, and that is why confusing the two can harm the environment.

Take, for example, the rainbow trout. Some anglers and environmentalists believe this species is invasive. From their perspective, it has taken over traditional brook trout habitat and, therefore, become a threat. However, the rainbow trout was specifically placed in these waters to provide angling opportunities after declining water quality made it unlikely the native brook trout could sustain the pressure.

Now, let’s look at the snakehead. Originally native to Asia, the snakehead has been slowly spreading through many eastern states since the late 1970s. Some of this spread was accidental, when fish were released by hobbyists who did not think they would survive or anglers who moved one without knowing what it was. However, several recently discovered populations are the direct result of anglers moving large quantities in the hope of establishing new fishing opportunities.

Both species are non-native, meaning they should not be found in Pennsylvania. Both species provide recreational opportunities. However, the snakehead has the potential to cause harm by displacing multiple native species, having almost no native predators, and completely changing the local ecosystem. The rainbow thrives alongside the native species and is even a food source for larger native fish.

The snakehead is just one example, but one that has received recent attention. Wild boars, silver carp and rusty crayfish are all invasive species with a foothold in our state and each has proponents who support a live and let live or make them a sport species attitude.

But given enough time and freedom, each can destroy crops, displace native species, and even destroy local habitats.

Keeping invasive species in check or, even better, eradicating them as soon as possible when they are found in a new location is not about tradition or opposition to change. It is about preserving our fragile ecosystem and the hundreds of other species that could be impacted.