The Washington Post reported that the border fence between the United States and Mexico may damage the environment.  (Story here.)  Specifically, the fence may prevent various animals and plants from crossing the border and mating.  (The WaPo was unclear on how plants, which are not locomotive, would be affected by a fence.)  Some environmentalists are so incensed that the pronghorn and long-nose bat will be affected by the Bush Administration’s policies that they are threatening civil disobedience:

Some wildlife researchers have grown so concerned about the consequences of bisecting hundreds of miles of rugged habitat that they have talked of engaging in civil disobedience to block the fence’s construction.

“This wall is so asinine, and so wrong, I am one of a dozen scientists ready to lay our bodies down in front of tractors,” Healy Hamilton, who directs the Center for Biodiversity Research and Information at the California Academy of Sciences, told colleagues at a recent scientific retreat here. “This is one thing we might be able to stop.”

If you stop people from suctioning the brains out of the most vulnerable members of our own species, you have committed a federal offence.  If you impede the construction of a fence which inhibits illegal aliens from crossing the border and joining gangs in L.A., you will receive praise and adoration from the Left.  Totally sensible. 

Obviously, it isn’t hard to see why a fence would impede migratory patterns, but the environmentalists aren’t content with complaining about the border fence:

[Pronghorns] are the only remaining population on U.S. soil, and the five surveillance towers that the administration plans to build in the area will be in the middle of the pronghorns’ range, producing noise and human activity that would disturb the sensitive species.

Ironically, the people who want to throw themselves under tractors are Darwinists.  Now, I’m not advocating a complete intrusion into native habitat, but if a species can’t put up with noise and the mere presence of non-predatory animals (here, humans) - and a minimal presence at that (five towers spread out over a few hundred miles), it isn’t fit for long-term survival.  Ditto for those who would throw themselves in front of tractors. 

The Department of Homeland Security notes that the massive influx of illegal immigrants has caused its own environmental problems:

Homeland Security’s Kudwa said that agency officials tried to be sensitive to “both environmental and cultural artifacts” in the area, adding that by reducing the trash left by immigrants crossing the border, the barrier could improve the environment in some ways.

Just a guess, but the ocelet, jaugar, and long-nose bat probably aren’t helped much when they eat trash or drugs abandoned by border-crossers.  The resulting contamination of their water supply may be problematic as well. 

Now, back to the plants:

Brian P. Segee, a Defenders of Wildlife staff lawyer, said the waiver decision will affect plants and animals in areas ranging from the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Texas to Arizona’s San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area.

“We’re going forward blindly now, and we’re going to be learning about the consequences for years to come,” Segee said in an interview.

Yes, Mr. Segee, we are “blindly” stipulating that a stationary fence will harm stationary plants.  As plants often need animals to reproduce (e.g. bees that cross-pollinate flowers), it is possible that a deleterious effect on migratory animals could also affect local plants.  Nevertheless, unless the affected species are necessary to the survival of plants, and their contribution to the survival of the plants outweighs the negative effects of eating those plants, the border fence won’t harm plant life.  Is Mr. Segee concerned about a long evening shadow?  Or guessing blindly?  You decide.