[APWG] In defense of native habitat...

[Chang, David]

Dear Mr. Beyfuss:

Plants can be invasive without malice aforethought, but certainly some
of the strategies they use are "malicious" by human standards - spines,
shading, vigorous growth, allelopathic chemicals.

Denying that plants can be "invasive" is being ignorant of ecology.  A
healthy diverse undisturbed ecosystem is resistant to invasion.
However, ecosystems are not static.  Certainly, humans are mostly
responsible for the transport of species between continents and humans
are responsible for much of the disturbance of ecosystems which allow
plants to be invasive.  But natural processes are also at play - birds
and floods can move species, while fire, flood, disease, drought,
grazing, and now, global warming can upset ecosystems and open up a
habitat to invasion.

Some plants are better at invading than others.  They are far from being
inferior.  It doesn't matter to the plant that survives best, whether it
is native or non-native.  In California's riparian areas, invasive weeds
like cape ivy, (Delairea odorata), Arundo donax, and vinca (Vinca major)
are excluding or suppressing the ferns, sorrels, mugworts, and young
redwoods, pines, oaks, sycamores and willows that otherwise might grow
there.  An oak forest is considerably more complex than a eucalyptus
forest.  I am trying to prevent our own unique habitats from being
overwhelmed by the invasive non-native weed.  

We are not banning plants based solely on their origins.  Analysis of
whether a plant should be listed as an invasive weed includes its impact
on the environment and human welfare - whether it increases the role of
fire in the local ecosystem; whether it displaces native plants that
local fauna depend on for food and does not serve as food itself;
whether it overwhelms a habitat; whether it increases the risk of
flooding damage; whether it is difficult to control and contaminates
crops and landscapes; and/or whether it is poisonous, spiny, or blocks
recreational access.

Not all non-native plants are invasive.  Studies have determined that of
1,000 plants that may be imported to the U.S., 100 may be capable of
escaping the garden, 10 may be capable of naturalizing, and only 1
becomes an invasive weed that causes problems for native habitat.

I don't try to eradicate all the non-native weeds in my area.  There are
way too many that are too widespread.  I do try to stop those invasive
weeds that are not well established, I do try to protect and restore
habitat that can be protected and restored, I do try to prevent the
introduction of invasive weeds that do not occur here, and I do have a
strategic plan that prevents the capricious project or "knee-jerk
reaction".

Some of us are probably too zealous and want all non-native plants
prohibited.  Of course, this is not realistic.  I understand the need
for a bigger flower; the exotic orchid; or the fast growing ground
cover.  But I hope that known invasive ornamental plants are not
purposefully used where they can invade native habitat, and I encourage
the use of native plants when there is no need for non-native plants.

Agriculture depends on plants that are non-native.  But crop plants have
been so domesticated over the years that they have a hard time growing
on their own. (There are exceptions.)  We are not asking for watermelons
or even tomatoes to be banned as invasive weeds.  It is "silly" to
equate non-native crop plants with the invasive plants issue.  

Of course, your native habitat is not my native habitat.  I, by the way,
am a California-American of Chinese descent who believes that tree of
heaven (Ailanthus altissima) is an invasive weed.  Therefore, I am a
racist?  I think I just defined non sequitur.

Mr Beyfuss, I ask you to reconsider your priorities.  Learn more about
the issue.  Do you support unique natural habitats and biodiversity or
non-native invasive weeds? 

In the long run, I won't be around to see whether I have made a
difference.  But in the short haul, I can say I tried.

Respectfully,
David Chang 
Weed Management Area Coordinator
Agricultural Commissioner's Office 
County of Santa Barbara, California
California Invasive Plant Council Board Member
Www.countyofsb.org/agcomm/wma  
Www.cal-ipc.org  


-----Original Message-----
From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Melinda
Mohrman
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:02 PM

>>> Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu> 12/19/2006 4:40 PM >>>
The concept of plants in themselves being capable of being "invasive" is
silly. It is attributing human qualities (implying malice in this case)
to unthinking organisms. Plants live, grow, reproduce (some are very
efficient at this) and die. New or different plants do not displace
established existing plants in healthy, undisturbed ecosystems. Plants
do not appear anywhere due to "spontaneous generation". They are brought
in by humans or animals. They may colonize or become naturalized in
(neither colonize nor naturalize  imply malice) areas less suited to so
called "native" species because human activity has allowed this to
happen.

I am offended at the concept that "exotic" plants are somehow inferior
to "native" plants. Especially since 90% of my diet and that of most of
us is derived from "exotic" plants. Demonizing "exotic" plants as
"invasive exotic" is inherently offensive .  Which term is less
offensive to you "Invasive exotic" or "opportunistic colonizer"? Now try
to answer that question if you happen to be from the Middle East (maybe
Iraq), Asia or Africa or Europe and you hear or read an American talking
about "invasive exotic species". I am sure the people in the Middle East
or anywhere else in the world must enjoy reading about our efforts to
"combat" (another wonderful term) "invasive, exotic species".

Personally I like the term "noxious weed" in which a weed is defined as
"an unwanted plant". By this definition a "volunteer" (i.e. unplanted)
soybean plant growing in a corn field is a weed.  A "noxious weed" is a
particularly undesirable weed. Why do we have to invent new terms that
are as offensive as "exotic invasive" or even worse "alien, invasive"?

What I find even more troubling is the knee jerk reaction to their
presence. Lets just kill all the bad plants we don't like anymore and
everything will be fine. First we gather all their names up and put them
on a list. Target these for extermination. Next we will make up more
lists of plants that "might" be "invasive" in the future and ban them
too. Here in NY State we already have county executives issuing
"executive decrees" banning the use of any but "native" species in any
future plantings on county property. How dare they do this? Yet, this is
a logical extension of the current policies we are formulating. Why
should we be denied daffodils, daylillies, tulips or apple trees or
Kentucky bluegrass (another exotic import) because someone has decided
that they are evil?

In the long run, and I must emphasize looking at the long run or the big
picture, every single environment on this planet will ultimately
determine what plant and animal species survives there, not some
bureaucrat in Washington with a pen making up lists of good versus bad
plants based on his or her opinion. This process is called natural
selection and it is constant. Black locust is OK in PA because it is
"native" but bad in NY because it is exotic? This is crazy. The same
species of Magnolias growing in China are identical to some of those
growing here. At one time there was one continent so what exactly is
"native" and why are "native" plants superior to Non native? Are "native
people, i.e. blue blooded Americans inherently superior to immigrants
because they were born here? How long must one be here to be considered
a "native"?  Global warming will have a far more profound effect on
plant species and their distribution than some group of people spraying
herbicides on plants they don't like.

An interesting research project along that line might be to study
exactly how plants are distributed and become established within any
given community.  While highly paid administrators are forming invasive
plant councils, attending countless meetings and making regulations, the
local highway department employee (@ $10 per hour) is transplanting
garlic mustard and Japanese knotweed every time they move the Grade-all
machine from one place to another. The people picking up garbage along
the highway are also picking up weed seeds and moving them down the
road. All the campers, mountain bikers, hikers, 4 wheelers, skiers, and
other outdoor recreationist constantly introduce exotic stuff into the
environment.  Should we pass regulations banning these activities? No,
it is much easier to blame the plants for the problems and spray them
with herbicides. Or is it?

I recently spoke with the local Executive Director of the Nature
Conservancy for the Catskill Mountain region and he estimated that he
could easily spend 90% or more of their total annual operating budget
trying to eradicate only garlic mustard and only from roadsides in this
region and the net result would be that it would be required to do this
every year indefinitely with no chance of eradication at all. Is this a
good use of our limited resources? Good organizations like Ohio's Rural
Action Network are forced to rescue plants from proposed new highways
which soon will have their shoulders colonized by "exotic, invasive
plants". So, should we ban the building of new highways or prohibit
logging or timber harvest because of the inevitable consequences? Maybe
we should ban all imports of all exotic plants or better yet prohibit
cultivation of all but native plants! Or do we proceed as carefully as
possible with these projects and realize that there will surely be
unwanted consequences as a result?

Most of the plants now considered as evil, invasive exotic species were
introduced for some very good reasons and many of them are still great
choices for many situations. If not for Norway maple there would be no
street trees in some stressed locations. Like the soybean plant in the
cornfield, one situation's weed is another situations wildflower. Black
locust is a wonderful alternative to CCA pressure treated wood, many,
many species of songbirds feast on the berries of the exotic
honeysuckles, Autumn and Russian olive, bittersweet, barberry,
multiflora rose, and on and on.

I don't like the idea of banning books, banning plants or banning
anything because it is politically correct. All this talk about
"combating invasive exotics" and the connotations of this language makes
me very nervous. We are already engaged in far too many wars for our own
good and for the good of our planet.

Thanks for reading.
Bob Beyfuss

At 11:20 AM 12/13/2006, Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov wrote:

>Excuse the cross-postings but it looks like there is something in this
for 
>everyone!
>
>This discussion is already underway!  A summary of the purpose and how
you 
>can participate is below.  To see the full notice, see: 
>http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gp
o.gov/2006/E6-18768.htm

>
> 
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health
>Inspection Service (APHIS) is hosting an electronic public discussion
>on methods that can be used to evaluate the potential of imported
>plants to become invasive species if they are introduced into the
>United States. Any interested person can register for the electronic
>discussion, which will allow participants to upload files and interact
>with other participants and with APHIS staff.
>
>DATES: The electronic public discussion will be held from November 27,
>2006 to January 26, 2007.
>
>FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Polly Lehtonen, Senior Staff
>Officer, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
>River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8758.
>
>QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: We would like participants in the
>electronic discussion to specifically address the following six
questions,
>although general comments on the issue of evaluating invasiveness will
>be accepted as well.
>    1. What criteria, other than whether the plant has a history of
>invasiveness elsewhere, are most useful to determine the invasiveness
>of a plant introduced into the United States for the first time?
>    2. When there is little or no existing scientific literature or
>other information describing the invasiveness of a plant species, how
>much should we extrapolate from information on congeners (other species
>within the same genus)?
>    3. What specific scientific experiments should be conducted to best
>evaluate a plant's invasive potential? Should these experiments be
>conducted in a foreign area, in the United States, or both?
>    4. How should the results of such experiments be interpreted?
>Specifically, what results should be interpreted as providing
>conclusive information for a regulatory decision?
>    5. If field trials are necessary to determine the invasive
>potential of a plant, under what conditions should the research be
>conducted to prevent the escape of the plant into the environment?
>    6. What models or techniques are being used by the nursery
>industry, weed scientists, seed companies, botanical gardens, and
>others to screen plants that have not yet been widely introduced into
>the United States for invasiveness? What species have been rejected by
>these evaluators as a result of the use of these evaluation methods?
>
>ACCESSING THE ELECTRONIC DISCUSSION:
>    While anyone can access the discussion and read the comments,
>registration is required in order to participate in the discussion.
You
>will be asked to register at the time you post your comment.
Participants
>will be required to enter their name and e-mail address. Affiliation
and
>mailing address are optional. Only the participant names will be
publicly 
>displayed.
>
>The discussion will be accessible through a link on Plant Protection
and
>Quarantine's Web page for the nursery stock revision, 
><http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.htm
l&log=linklog&to=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html>http://
www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html.
>
>_______________________________________________
>PCA's Medicinal Plant Working Group mailing list
>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org 
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantcon
servation.org

>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to
MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org 
>with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
>Disclaimer
>Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc. 
>reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message. The 
>information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a 
>substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific 
>medical condition or question. All medical and other healthcare 
>information that is discussed on this list should be carefully reviewed
by 
>the individual reader and their qualified healthcare professional.
Posts 
>do not reflect any official opinions or positions of the Plant 
>Conservation Alliance.

***************************************************************
This email should be considered "unofficial communication"
and does not necessarily reflect the official position of
the City of Chesterfield. An "official position" of the
City shall only be communicated in letter form, using
City letterhead.
***************************************************************


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

Disclaimer

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


-----Original Message-----
From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Bob
Beyfuss
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 11:52 AM
To: Craig Dremann
Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [APWG] BLM buys > ONE MILLION lbs. exotics/year? -
EXOTIC-FREE by 2011??

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