[APWG] BLM buys > ONE MILLION lbs. exotics/year? - EXOTIC-FREE by 2011??

[David Bruce Leonard]

This is extremely silly. No one wants to get rid of alien food crops that are not invasive (ie that do not naturalize).

If someone needs a "scientist" to tell him that the destruction of 70% of Tahitian native forest ecosystems (birds, bugs, the whole deal) by Miconia is a "bad" thing either isn't thinking or needs to check his heart. Hawaiian ecosystems have been devastated by alien species, including man. Don't we have a responsibility to mitigate some of our impact?

There are always nice "rational" reasons to destroy the beauty of native ecosystems.

David Bruce Leonard, L.Ac.
Medicine at your Feet
http://www.davidbruceleonard.com

--- rlb14 at cornell.edu wrote:

From: Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu>
To: Craig Dremann <craig at astreet.com>
Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [APWG] BLM buys > ONE MILLION lbs. exotics/year? - EXOTIC-FREE by 2011??
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:51:47 -0400

Hi Craig
The reason why exotic seeds have been planted so extensively is because 
many have been identified as having some very valuable virtues for humans 
and wildlife and many also do serve valuable ecological roles. You seem to 
think that all exotic plants are bad and this is simply nonsense, 90% of 
our food supply is derived from exotic plants and animals. Most Americans 
could not get through a single day without eating or using exotic plants 
and animals.  20 to 30% off ALL  plant species in the continental United 
States are exotic in origin. The overwhelming majority have become 
naturalized and are either benign or useful. A few are invasive but damning 
all exotics based on the negative attributes of a very few is much like 
condemning an entire race of people based on the actions of a few. Should 
we engage in a campaign to eradicate everything that is exotic simple 
because it is not native? Should we douse our fields, forest and roadsides 
with chemical herbicides simply because we don't like the foreign plants 
that are growing there? Who is going to pay for such an eradication and 
what would be the result? Nobody likes invasive plants that may displace 
native plants but unless the conditions that led to invasions are 
addressed, attempts at eradication of well established exotics are a waste 
of time and money. Weed seeds, as defined on seed packages, are simply 
seeds that are not of the same species as what is being purchased. Weeds 
are unwanted plants, poison ivy is an unwanted plant that most would 
consider a weed whether is it is native or exotic. Do some research on the 
exotic plants you mention and you will learn why they have been planted.
Alfalfa, for example, is perhaps the most important forage crop for dairy 
cattle in the United States. As for damaging native ecosystems, how do you 
define damage? In the broadest sense any and all human activities could be 
construed as "damaging" to natural ecosystems in the extent that they alter 
"natures" normal pathways. This is certainly true for virtually all 
agriculture.  What would be the ecological effect of widespread herbicide 
applications to get rid of exotic plants? Be careful what you wish for! No 
court has ever ruled in favor of ecosystems as plaintiffs. This is a 
subjective notion and not science.
Bob Beyfuss

01:32 PM 5/16/2007, you wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>I've found a 2005 report on the web, by Scott Lambert and Peggy Olwell
>from 2005, a Powerpoint presentation entitled "Seed use by the BLM" that
>is cached as a text document by Google at
>http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:5FZbyrYML6MJ:ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/PMC/Conferences/WestPM-Mar2006/ScottLambertBLM-SeedUse.ppt+crested+RSW+BLM&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
>
>According to this 2005 slide show, the 10-year average for BLM's seed
>buys was 2.2 million pounds, with a high of 6.6 million pounds in 1999
>and the 2005 purchases were 3.6 million pounds.
>
>The very unfortunate part of the story, is that 41% of those seeds
>purchased in 2005 were exotics, or 1,476,000 pounds, with their weed
>seeds and other crop seeds.  At 1% weed or other crop, means that about
>14,000 pounds of weed seeds were purchased along with those exotic
>seeds.
>
>The exotic seeds annually purchased by BLM, list hasn't changed much
>over time: Crested wheatgrass, Russian ryegrass, Siberian wheatgrass,
>Small Burnet, Sainfoin, Alfalfa, with minor amounts of Pubescent
>wheatgrass, and Yellow sweet clover.
>
>I CANNOT UNDERSTAND at all, the disconnect between the professional
>BOTANISTS and professional ECOLOGISTS that BLM has on staff, and the
>purchase of over a million pounds of exotic seeds, to sow back onto our
>public lands?  It doesn't make any scientific or ecological sense?
>
>Maybe a spokeperson from BLM can enlighten us, why all these millions of
>pounds of exotic seeds were purchased by the agency, when it is known
>that these exotics are damaging to the native ecosystems they were sown
>into?
>
>Shouldn't BLM start winding down the purchase of exotic seeds, say by
>33% a year for the next three years, or a decrease of about 1/2 million
>pounds a year, to purchase ZERO EXOTIC SEEDS by 2011?
>
>SIncerely,  Craig Dremann, Redwood City, CA (650) 325-7333
>
>_______________________________________________
>PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
>APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
>Disclaimer
>Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the 
>opinion of the individual posting the message.


_______________________________________________
PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org

Disclaimer                                                                
Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting the message.