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

[Bob Beyfuss]

Hi Bill
My comments are in bold type
At 03:47 PM 5/17/2007, you wrote:
>Hi, Bob and all.  I saw this thread and had to horn in.
>
>"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.
>Bob, the contribution of exotic species to our food supply is probably 
>more like 97%,
>but that point is totally unrelated here.  Have you seen anyone advocating 
>converting
>the Corn Belt back to tall grass prairies?
Yes, while reintroducing the Buffalo and getting rid of cattle. There are 
all sorts of fanatics out there!


>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.
>
>Also 86% of the listed weeds (noxious and otherwise) in California are 
>introduced.
>In Pennsylvania 100% of the listed weeds are introduced, while Ohio lists 
>only
>1 native species out of 18 as a weed.

OK so we ban the 97% that are good to protect us from 3% that are bad? A 
weed is an unwanted plant and just because someone thinks that only exotic 
plants are unwanted is simply bias on their part.  Beech sprouts, striped 
maple, poison ivy are all weeds in my forest. Native weeds but still weeds. 
I object to the bias against exotics simply because they are exotic.


>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 continue a campaign of introducing and seeding exotic species 
>willy-nilly?

I don't think most of the introductions are "willy nilly"  Why would 
someone introduce something "willy nilly"? This makes no sense to me.

>
>Should we douse our fields, forest and roadsides with chemical herbicides
>simply because we don't like the foreign plants that are growing there?
>
>Bob, if you think that is the message of the vast majority of native plant 
>enthusiasts
>and organizations, as well as local, state and federal agencies, then you 
>may be
>prone to major over-interpretation.

The subject line reads "Exotic free by 2011" It does not say "invasive 
exotic free" or "weed free" or "noxious weed" free. What am I 
misinterpreting? The remedy to the "threat of invasive, exotic species is 
to kill them" . Chemical companies that sell herbicides like this policy 
very much.

>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.
>
>Is that why noxious weed seeds showing up in analyses of crop seed lots
>is grounds for taking that entire seed lot off the market?
>Yes, if the percentage of weed seeds is higher than can be reasonably 
>expected.



>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.
>
>We all need to continue doing research and learning.  It might be 
>instructive to
>investigate something like the salt-cedar 
>species:  http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/tama1.htm   ,
>or cogongrass:   http://www.cogongrass.org/  .
>
>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?
>
>Native ecosystems are communities of native plants, native animals, native 
>microbes,
>all living together on a landscape (soil).  The composition of those 
>communities and
>that soil is the result of co-evolution of the organisms and that 
>landscape (soil) under
>the influence of thousands to millions of years of the climatic history of 
>the region.
>Drastically disturb (fire, hurricane, plow, etc.) such an ecosystem, and 
>within a period of
>years, depending on location, that ecosystem, if left alone, will 
>self-restore to its original state.
>
>Introducing invasive exotic plants through arrogance or ignorance can 
>derail that ability of the
>native system to self-restore, or certainly take the self-restoration to a 
>different endpoint.
>We humans have much to learn at the knee of such ecosystems.

Self restore? In the past 50 years the levels of atmospheric CO2 have risen 
from 2% to 3%. This has had a profound effect on plant species composition. 
Investigate some basic plant physiology. Many (C4) weeds thrive at the 
higher CO2 levels whereas other (C3) species suffer. Succession does not go 
backwards by definition.  You cannot restore an ecosystem that has been 
altered by climatic changes unless you change the climate. The thought that 
we can recreate the ecosystems that existed even 100 years ago, when the 
climate was very different than now,  by simply killing the new plants off 
and replanting the old ones, is ridiculous, let alone recreating the 
climate that existed thousands or millions of years ago.  People and 
organizations have decided that they like the ecosystems that existed 
before 1650, That is OK with me but no one will ever recreate those 
ecosystems.


>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.
>
>Bob, the courts have not been very kind to the thousands of Enron 
>employees who had their pension
>funds sacked either.  Don't hold up the judicial system as an example of 
>fair and wise.

I don't always agree with the courts, nor do I agree with our foreign 
policy but I must live with it and in the big picture it has framed our 
society. I am not an anarchist. I would have to say that overall, our 
judicial system has been fair and wise.


>This is a subjective notion and not science.
>
>Another contact for you to consider:
>
>Finger Lakes Native Plant Society of Ithaca
>http://www.fingerlakesnativeplantsociety.org/
>
>
>Bob Beyfuss
>
>Thanx
>
>Bill Stringer
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20070518/f674a021/attachment.html>