Native plants and animals are a natural heritage threatened by one of the six greatest extinction events in Earth's history. Humans, through habitat transformation, exploitation, and species introductions, are driving this extinction event. To turn this tide, Speziale et al. (2014) suggest reducing human dependence on non-native species by increasing the use, harvest, planting, and raising of native species, thereby increasing their cultural and economic value. The search for new or under-appreciated uses of native species is laudable, especially if it helps protect them and contributes to local cultural diversity. Such efforts are arguably an inherent trait of human curiosity and entrepreneurship and are a central platform of popular movements such as slow foods and native gardening. However, Speziale et al.'s hypothesis - that using native species can protect them - is less simple than they suggest. We refute the idea of nativism that underpins Speziale et al.'s proposal and makes it poorly defensible and considered the unaddressed consequences of the proposal for people and for conservation.