When addressing the issue of salt marsh restoration versus recolonization of non-native plants, I think that each situation must be looked at individually. As human begins, we so often make broad generalizations about problems in society and tend to forget that every situation is unique, poses its own challenges, and therefore requires individual attention. When making generalizations, we run the risk of leaving out important steps in our attempt to alleviate a problem. While intervention may be appropriate with certain marshes, other marshes are meant to be left alone. Also, in terms of the salt marshes (and environmental issues in general), even when we look individually at situations, we face not only biological complications but also political legislation that threatens to tear down our efforts.

The word “restoration” implies helpful intervention that will aid in getting the salt marshes out of harm’s way. However, in many cases, the situation is so complex that the actions we take to “restore” the marshes actually make things worse. Weis and Butler describe Phragmites-dominated marshes that we try to restore by using herbicides. One herbicide used, glyphosate, is toxic to other plants besides the unwanted ones as well as invertebrates and “cannot be said to be good for the ecosystem” (175). To make the situation worse, repeated applications of glyphosate is necessary to kill the unwanted plants, but these plants often return anyway because underground, they are protected from the herbicides and have not been fully destroyed. This creates an endless cycle where our attempts to better, or restore, the marshes only exacerbate the problem we started with.

Replanting is another common method of restoration that brings with it more complications. For example, when planting with Spartina, the nature of the water has everything to do with the restoration’s success. The salinity of the water can be too high or the soil can have the wrong texture and the attempt will fail. If the water flow is too rapid or experiences too much wave action, young plants that are not yet rooted in place may erode. In addition, something as simple as the elevation of the marsh as well as drainage can affect whether a plant lives or dies. There is also the problem of larger animals such as geese that eat the newly inserted plants and reverse our efforts. The situation with Spartina is just one example of Mother Nature reminding us that she is in charge. When we try to intervene with nature and keep getting pushed back, it may be nature’s way of telling us that it will take care of itself as it did before humans started getting involved.

Lastly, even when our efforts are in good faith and nature is on our side, we face never-ending political legislation that can throw us back to square one. Weis and Butler write about the $8 billion effort to restore the flow of water from Lake Okeechobee in Florida into the Everglades in order to ensure adequate water supply for the area. In 2003, the Florida legislature refused to enforce pollution regulations in the area until 2016. In 2007, the Everglades National park was removed from the list of endangered World Heritage sites, which according to Weis and Butler, sent a confusing message that everything was fine in the area. As hard as we try to protect our environment, we seem to always run into two obstacles: nature and legislation. In the end, we are humans interfering in nature, something that has rarely seen positive effects and to top it all off, political legislation frequently stands in our way. Therefore, each situation of restoration must be approached from a different viewpoint and “restored” (or left alone) in a way that will minimize potential barriers and prevent further destruction.