[APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough

Fri Mar 21 19:35:00 CDT 2008

If you don't want to be subjected to a ridiculously long and to-the-point email, please read no further. I've been writing and questioning whether I should respond to your email Bob or just let it go, but could not. These discussions have made me wonder whether they are about fueling our internal fires through spirited debate or trying to use discussion as a means to an end. Do we write to inform, stay current, or possibly change minds by supplying facts or just air our opinions for the mere sake of it? I am writing based on information I have acquired from my job in this field, what I learn from current research and from my education. I could supply these facts straight from my textbooks if need be. Bob, can you please tell me where your science comes from? I am on the listserve and write because I do not take my role in conservation lightly. There are hundreds and thousands of people working in this field who expose themselves every day to chemicals, fire, and remote and dangerous locations and tasks because they want to be effective in protecting our environment. Work that is dictated by the best available science. I would not put myself in harm's way to do the work I do for anyone's value judgments or inflammatory rhetoric and view that mentality as ignorant of the work conservationists do.

Comparing a land manager/conservation agency with formal education and experience with our natural world to the average homeowner is comparing oranges and apples. If you find a land manager who just grabs their "aphid-be-gone" without assessing the environmental impacts and weighing the pros and cons, they should find another career. Our job is to protect the environment through sound decision making. 

While an agricultural plant is or may be exotic, they are not necessarily invasive and comparisons should not be made to invasive exotics in the wild. An ag. plant is planted in defined and tended soil, fertilized, chemically treated and watered to thrive. Their existence and survival depends almost entirely on human intervention. Invasive exotics have their own set of competitive advantages and tools that allow them to thrive unaided. We just plant them.

You actually supported why invasives are bad when you said that monocultures are highly susceptible to insects/diseases - therefore why we should avoid them. Monocultures at such a large scale do not exist in nature, because nature has defenses to keep that from happening or for very long - and that's not coincidence. There's no greater proof that monocultures are "bad" than the fact that the natural world which supports all life forms selects diversity over monocultures. Organic farming successfully avoids the use of pesticides by not planting crops in monocultures - no doubt an idea copied from nature. We use herbicides in our natural areas to maintain or restore those systems back to their previously un-infested state, so that we won't have to apply billions of gallons of pesticides every year. Healthy functioning ecosystems are the best "pesticide" there is. 

Bob, you said you concede to eating chemically treated plants to live, but do not feel the same about chemicals on our public lands. So, what you are saying is that you'll accept the negatives for your own survival, but weigh it differently for other life forms? Well, food is just one part of our survival. We also need clean water and air which come from our natural resources. Our survival depends just as much on functioning forests, oceans, and wetlands as on apples and corn, but let me emphasize - functioning. 

Hundreds and thousands of years of evolution could and will create new systems from our currently invaded ones if left unmanaged, however, there are very real threats to the environment and humans happening right now and in the meantime. For instance, fire is a huge problem out west and in many parts of the world because invasives have altered fire regimes or in some cases have added fire when there was none previously. These invasive plants have altered fuel type and load, burn frequency and intensity among many other factors. Not only does that change in fire regime have serious consequences to those ecosystems and our planet overall, but to the health and economy of those communities and states that live in and depend on those functioning systems and all the resources they provide: food, clean water and air, erosion control, flood prevention and on and on. 

I don't think anyone would disagree with you Bob that these invaded systems could or will become entirely new systems through time and evolution, but while that change is happening, many species will be lost. Time is indeed the critical part in all of this. It takes plants and animals hundreds and thousands of years to adapt to change. Even the generalists now are having a hard time with our rapidly changing environment. I think it is difficult for most of us to sit back and say, that's ok that in the last 24 hours we just lost 10 species forever under our watch, because in 10,000 years there will be 10 new ones. Not to mention that there are no dispensable species in nature. The loss of one affects many and each loss compounds with time.

I would challenge you Bob to analyze what would happen to a system left to invasion. It's easy to say pesticides are bad, but do you have a good alternative? Do you think conservationists enjoy exposing themselves to chemicals and dealing with public backlash? Here's an example. I had correspondence with someone from the listserve about invasives/herbicides in their region. This is part of an article he sent me about the effects of invasives out west. 

...."Gibbs compares using herbicide to putting antiseptic on a wound to give
the body' healing processes an edge over bacteria. The West is crawling
with examples of what happens when infection spreads. In Montana, a
40,000-acre spotted knapweed invasion in the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness has reduced elk forage in some places by 70 percent,
according to Jerry Asher, who spent 11 years with the BLM educating the
public about noxious weeds.
Perennial pepperweed came to Lassen County in 1996, Gibbs says, and now
infests 64,000 acres, where it threatens habitat for the endangered
Carson wandering skipper. And squarrose knapweed, discovered in Utah 40
years ago, now covers hundreds of thousands of acres.."

If you just focused on the first example of a 40,000+ area with a knapweed invasion reducing elk forage by 70% - start to think of how elk rely on, help maintain, and are needed by various components of that ecosystem and they alone are just one small part of it. So, hypothetically we do nothing there to correct the invasive problem, what happens in the meantime? What will happen to the species there currently and what will it look like over time? I'd truthfully be interested to hear what you perceive the chain of events to be as maybe I am missing something - and I am open to that. My job would be a lot easier if I could stop worrying about invasives. 

I'd also be interested to hear what your solution is to not using chemicals as I'm constantly thinking of every alternative and have yet to find a good one. Should we get out our shovels and hand dig 40,000 acres of knapweed? Or, if we leave the invasives to invade with the idea that the system will evolve over time, and we find (because we will) species after species declining and our endangered and extinct species list climbing, do we continue to do nothing? We watch them all go? Are you suggesting we wave them goodbye? Perhaps ourselves included?

If we really care about making a difference, I hope we all consider our invovlement on this listserve as with anything else - seriously. It is a tool for environmental improvement. I hope we write with information that can be useful when making decisions about our natural world. Assumptions without an ounce of scientific backing are not helpful. I think it is fine to propose them to get people thinking and perhaps to encourage new research, but beating a dead horse is not helpful.

It is obvious by your numerous emails that you care Bob just as I do. I'm hoping everyone, myself included, keeps solutions in mind about all else. Discussions can be helpful in many ways, but solutions are what we're after. Or, please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Thanks. Karen

________________________________

From: Bob Beyfuss [mailto:rlb14 at cornell.edu]
Sent: Fri 3/21/2008 3:24 PM
To: Karen Adair; Gena Fleming
Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: RE: [APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough

Hello Karen
I think one of the key issues you have identified is the "time" one. The
invasive phenomena is a relatively short term episode following varying
periods of time from establishment to explosion. For many of these plants
we are in the explosion stage right now but I am pretty certain that will
change in time as dynamic ecosystems change.  I think we all agree that
ecosystems are dynamic.
Since 90% of our plant food supply are exotic plants you might conclude
that they would not have "natural or native" predators or pest or problems
from diseases and insects, yet the opposite is true. American farmers
applied 5 billion pounds of pesticides to protect these mostly exotic
plants from pests in the year 2,000.
Obviously, exotic plants are not immune to native pests or diseases, given
time. Our crops are grown in monocultures that invasive species also seem
to create at the expense of native species. These apparent monocultures are
most susceptible to insects and diseases.
I work with many home gardeners as well as farmers and often I get calls
from frantic gardeners who are observing an insect explosion in their
gardens by something like aphids, for example.  In many cases the aphid
populations will soon be brought down to acceptable levels by natural pests
such as lady beetles and other predators. Unfortunately the immediate
reaction of many gardeners, fueled by TV and radio advertisements that sell
the chemicals is to reach for the pesticide spray and wipe them out. The
spray that wipes out the aphids will need to reapplied within a week or so
because the aphids have many generations per season but if the spray kills
the lady beetle predators, they are gone for the year at the very least.
The gardener is now chemically dependent upon the pesticide.  I fear we are
trying to use the same tactics with exotic weeds.
  As for those of us who use a couple of quarts of Round Up each year, it
seems trivial compared to the benefits but in 2005 over 310,000 pounds of
the active ingredient in Round Up (glyphosate) were applied in California
alone.
Now my home state of NY has just awarded $500,000 to groups for
"terrestrial invasive plant eradication"  My feeling is that this money
will only result in delaying the natural ecosystem adjustments that will
occur and will do far more harm than good in the long run,.
It is  true that we do not know the long term consequences of invasive
plants on our ecosystems but is equally true that we also do not know the
long term effects of applying thousands of pounds of weed killers. Indeed,
there are risks involved. I accept these risks to the food system because I
need to eat and I don't want to pay more for food than I have to but I am
not so sure I accept these risks on public property.  I trust the ecosystem
response more than the human one.
I know that nature abhors a vacuum. When I observe the sheer biomass that
some of the invasives produce I cannot help but assume that this biomass
will soon be utilized by some other organism. I suspect that this will
happen in time.
I really do not mind if my opinions on this issue are in the minority. That
does not necessarily mean that I am wrong. as for Science supporting the
opposing view, I disagree with you. I don't think real science is based on
value judgements and inflammatory rhetoric.
Bob

At 12:41 AM 3/6/2008, Karen Adair wrote:
>I write from the perspective of a land steward who is working on the
>ground in these ecosystems and fighting these invasives "with my bare
>hands" every day. I have agreed with points that people from both sides of
>the "roundup can" have made and wanted to comment on a few of the recent
>statements.
>
>.."Environmental changes (man made or not) dictate that different life
>forms will be favored at the expense of others." Invasive exotics are not
>favored - they have nothing to stop them. Entirely different. Their
>invasiveness does not come from an ecosystem promoting them, but rather
>that it has none of the weapons that the natives (which have co-existed
>and co-evolved over the centuries) have to maintain "balance."
>
>I think it is important to use caution when suggesting that a native
>living among an invasive population is benefiting or thriving. While there
>may be instances when that's true (none that I've experienced), I suspect
>that most managers would say that's the exception rather than the rule. If
>you maintain the thinking that focusing on a few plants is not the way to
>go and focusing on the overall integrity of the ecosystem is, then I would
>suggest those rare incidences should not be given such weight in the
>invasives aren't bad debate. What is usually missing from those opinions
>is time. People decide that something is benefiting from the sheer fact
>that it is present at the point of their one observation. I would be
>interested to know if it is doing so well in 5, 10, or 20 years. 2)
>Studies regarding exotic shrubs as resources for birds (as one example)
>have shown that the lipid content in the fruit of the exotic shrubs
>studied was less than that in the fruit of native shrubs. So while these
>birds are consuming the same quantity, the quality is not the same. This
>has profound effects when you consider the caloric needs of birds in
>migration. Additionally, the study showed that nest placement was
>different in exotic shrubs due to their structure and consequently nest
>predation was higher when compared to nests in natives. You might find a
>nest in every multiflora rose you see, but whether birds actually hatched
>and survived is the important factor. I have yet to hear of a study that
>shows invasives provide even equal benefits to wildlife.
>
>The topic of herbicides being bad relates directly to whether you think
>invasives are bad. The effects of an infestation allowed to thrive and
>spread for decades is far worse than a couple applications of one of the
>common and low toxicity herbicides that most managers use. In keeping with
>this mindset, a handful of natives that are inadvertently killed by
>over-spray is insignificant when the entire landscape is considered and
>when considering the long-term benefits of eradicating the infestation.
>Those who apply herbicide know that over-spray can easily be avoided or
>minimized by adhering to the label and best management practices.
>
>I thought this point that Gena made was excellent among others: The path
>of objectivity is not to deny our value-laden beliefs:  it is to declare
>them openly and thereby make them open to scrutiny, discussion, and
>refinement. I would suggest that's the derivation of the stance that the
>plants present pre-European settlement are native and anything after is
>not. Scientists noticed what they perceived to be a problem and had to
>come up with a starting point. Part of these emails have been about
>discussing and scrutinizing that pre-European settlement judgment.
>
>I'll end with this - it's important to remember than nobody can impose
>their value judgment on you. We each have the power to listen or not.
>Agree or not. We have the power to not let other peoples' opinions affect
>us if we so choose. I think those of us who think invasive exotics are bad
>should always be open to the opposing opinion and always question if what
>we are doing is what's best; I think the folks with the invasives aren't
>bad opinion should know that you are going up against a far greater number
>of people who do not share your view. It will take good scientific support
>to change such a widely accepted opinion. If you can prove something
>different than what I see out there every day, I'll put down my roundup.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Karen Adair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org on behalf of Gena Fleming
>Sent: Wed 3/5/2008 5:32 PM
>To: Bob Beyfuss
>Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
>Subject: Re: [APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough
>
>
>
>Hi:
>
>I really appreciate this contribution from Bob.  He said it all so
>well, but  I would like to add some comments too, all in the
>affirmative.    In the sake of brevity, I'm summarizing his points,
>not always exact quotes.  Hope that's o.k. (his full text is below).
>
>a) Re: ecosystem = interactive system:.  Yes, it is.  And that's why
>ecosystems are constantly changing.  That's part of their resilience.
>It is the integrity of the ecosystem itself that we should be
>safeguarding, not just select plants.
>
>b)  Re:  It's possible to destroy an ecosystem by bulldozing, etc.
>Yes.  But genetic engineering involves the actual invasion and
>deconstruction of DNA code.  This is a type of compromise to the
>integrity of the ecosystem that can hybridize, mutate, interact with
>pollinators, soil fertility, in all kinds of unpredictable ways.
>These plants don't look different from other plants, so aerial photos
>are going to be no help at all in detecting them.  This is
>deconstruction of ancestral heritage.  What's at risk is the integrity
>of the entire system, not just a habitat.
>
>c)  Re:  definition of "destroy" = "to reduce (an object) to useless
>fragments, a useless form or remains" .  Yes, and relevant to this,
>genetic engineering is cutting and pasting the DNA code between genera
>and kingdoms.  That's destruction through fragmentation and introduces
>chaos, undermining the very organizational foundations of life.
>
>d) Re:  many of the most hated exotics provide profound ecological
>benefits...:  Yes, they do.  That's why they're there.  A living
>system is an intelligent system and it tries to self heal.  In fact,
>iff we were more botanically literate, we would understand that many
>of these plants are also incredibly useful to us in other ways--- in
>terms of animal feed, medicine, etc.  We would be harvesting them and
>worried about running them into extinction.  However, since we rely so
>heavily on established industries, petrochemicals for fuel, drugs,
>etc., we are doing little to harvest these valuable plants for our own
>benefit.
>
>e) RE: "Efforts and resources aimed at eradicating plants that alter
>ecosystems detract from efforts and resources that might be focused on
>activities that actually do "destroy" ecosystems."    Yes!  Herbicides
>and even the introduction of biologic predators  are quite harmful.
>And we are being distracted from bigger threats.  Genetic engineering
>is posing a real threat, not to just certain plants, but to the
>integrity of the ecosystem itself.   I believe our concern about
>invasive species would be better placed here.
>
>f) RE;  "language affects tactics" "Our culture in America teaches to
>hate our enemies" etc.  Yes! Yes! Yes!  The war paradigm is everywhere
>in everything.  It is in the video games, in the movies, in our
>strategies, in our rules for effective composition, in our rules for
>intelligent "debate", in our sports, in our "problem solving"
>strategies,  etc. etc.
>
>Why are we worried about TAKS scores when our children all over our
>country (and now other countries too) are walking into school armed to
>the gills, and shooting one another and then themselves.  These are
>the problem-solving tactics we have taught them.   And they are taking
>it literally.  The subconscious mind tends to do that.
>
>
>So, if we can just put down that Round-up can for a moment.... that's
>right..... just back up slowly now.... easy. . .  nobody needs to get
>hurt here . . .
>
>: )
>
>best regards,
>
>Gena Fleming
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 05/03/2008, Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu> wrote:
> >
> > This is an interesting topic for discussion and it seems to have
> awakened many readers on this listserve. I do think that language matters
> in discussions and I think that thoughtful discussions may prevent rash
> actions that end up doing more harm than good.
> >
> > The term ecosystem was coined in 1930 by Roy Clapham, to denote the
> physical and biological components of an environment considered in
> relation to each other as a unit. British ecologist Arthur Tansley later
> refined the term, describing it as the interactive system established
> between biocoenosis (a group of living creatures) and their biotope (the
> environment in which they live).
> >
> > It certainly is possible to "destroy" an ecosystem by bulldozing and
> paving it over, thus removing the living components.  When a Utility
> company blows the top off a mountain in West Virginia to mine coal, I
> would say that the Mt top ecosystem has been destroyed. If left alone,
> i.e. not paved over, a new ecosystem will arise. That new ecosystem may
> consist mostly of exotic plants. I don't think any ecosystem is destroyed
> when  living organism such as plants are introduced. I also believe that
> humans are integral parts of ecosystems. The ecosystem is changed or
> altered when exotic plants are introduced but ecosystems are never static
> to begin with and are constantly changing. Environmental changes (man
> made or not) dictate that different life forms will be favored at the
> expense of others.
> >
> > Efforts and resources aimed at eradicating plants that alter ecosystems
> detract from efforts and resources that might be focused on activities
> that actually do "destroy" ecosystems. There is an important distinction
> here. We can only fight so many battles at one time, the tricky part is
> deciding where to fight and how much one is willing to spend on the fight.
> >
> > Please see my comments below following Phillips accurately quoted
> definitions of "destroy".
> >
> > tto reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or
> remains...(I contend that no plant can render an ecosystem as useless.
> Useless to who? to what? Many of the most hated invasive, exotic plants
> such as Tatarian honeysuckle, Autumn olive, multiflora rose, etc provide
> profound ecological benefits to native wildlife. The 50+ species of
> wildlife that feed on these and other invasive plants would not consider
> it useless at all.)  As for fragmentation, we build roads into pristine
> environments literally "destroying" parts of that ecosystem with
> blacktop, truthfully fragmenting those ecosystems into pieces that needed
> to stay connected to function as they once did and when the roadsides are
> colonized by exotic plants we blame them for the ecological damage?
> >
> > 2. to put an end to; extinguish (since ecosystems are comprised of
> living organisms integrating with the environment, unless the living
> things are all killed by paving, the ecosystem can never be extinguished
> by invasive plants)
> >
> > 3. to kill; slay (invasive plants don't kill all the existing plants,
> some allelopathic invasive plants may actually kill some species of
> existing plants but never will they kill the entire living components of
> any ecosystem)
> >
> > 4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate (
> see definition # 1)
> >
> > 5. to defeat completely ( I do not see how an ecosystem, can be
> defeated as one might defeat an opponent in a football game, i.e. we
> destroyed those guys!)
> >
> > 6. to engage in destroying things
> >
> > The value judgments implied by language that concern me are when
> someone decides that a plant is good or bad based entirely on the origin
> of the plant and then tries to impose those values on me!
> > People who are allergic to poison ivy or oak may very well hate the
> plant. They have the right to eradicate it if they want on their property
> but those people who are not allergic and who appreciate the value of
> poison ivy as food for wildlife or its pretty fall color have a right not
> to have someone else come onto their property to eradicate it.
> >
> > Although seemingly unrelated, a couple of recent posts to this
> listserve are really relevant to this discussion. It is highly likely
> that Thomas Jefferson would be appalled to see the current efforts to
> eradicate periwinkle from his estate in Monticello simply because it is
> exotic. Hating anything because of its ancestry is not something I
> condone. Especially when "nativeness" is so arbitrarily defined as "prior
> to 1750". The plant resulting from a bird flying north from Mexico
> depositing a seed in California in 1749 is "native' but if that same bird
> deposited the same seed in 1750 or 1760 , what results is an "exotic"
> plant?  The "definitions" of "native" and "exotic" imposed by the Clinton
> administration in the 1990's are so arbitrary as to render them
> completely indefensible.
> >
> > Language affects tactics. Our culture in America today teaches us to
> hate our enemies . We engage in a war on "terror" as if terror were some
> sort of specific entity. Now we are encouraged to engage in a war on
> "alien,  invasive exotic plants" Emotional language elicits emotional
> responses. It is hard not to hate  "exotic, invasive aliens that are
> destroying our ecosystems". The natural response is to kill them off but
> we have no idea what will follow when we have killed all the bad guys. We
> do know that killing off the bad guys is expensive in terms of resources
> used and does not necessarily result in the outcome we desire.
> >
> > I show students a slide of a patch of the invasive, exotic, garlic
> mustard growing on the edge of a forest I walk in. I ask the students
> what they would do when seeing this on their property. Some say, just
> spray it with herbicide to get rid of it. I then show them a slide of the
> same patch of garlic mustard where I have pushed the foliage aside with a
> stick to reveal the rare trilliums growing beneath it.  The herbicide
> spray would surely have dripped down and killed of the native perennial
> trillium forever since this plant rarely reproduces by seeds but the
> biennial garlic mustard would come back even more vigorously due to its
> huge soil seed bank. In this case the garlic mustard is actually
> protecting the trillium from the ravages of the oversized local deer
> population which have eaten all the other trillium in this forest that
> are not protected by the weeds the deer do not eat. This issue was also
> touched on by a recent post regarding the periwinkle extermination in Mo!
>  nticello urging caution when eradicating anything.
> >
> >
> > At 02:55 AM 3/5/2008, Philip Thomas (www.HEAR.org) wrote:
> >
> > If we're going to talk semantics, let's be sure and get it right.  See
> below* for my Webster's definitions for "destroy."
> >
> > Not one of the definitions states or implies anything about anything
> being "bad."
> >
> > However, definition 2 is certainly applicable, with respect to the
> native ecosystems (if the native ecosystem is "replaced," as you suggest).
> >
> > Definitions 2 and 4 also apply, if "use(fulness)" includes the
> sustenance of native species or systems.
> >
> > pt at hear.org
> >
> >
> > *1. to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or
> remains...
> >
> > 2. to put an end to; extinguish
> >
> > 3. to kill; slay
> >
> > 4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate
> >
> > 5. to defeat completely
> >
> > 6. to engage in destroying things
> >
> > Now
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu>
> > To: Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company <Craig at astreet.com>;
> apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> > Sent: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 4:22 pm
> > Subject: Re: [APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough
> > Hi Craig and all,
> > Replaced is the correct term.
> > Destroying implies a value judgment that the invasive plants are "bad" and
> > the plants that they are replacing are "good". In science there are no
> > "good" or "bad" plants as there are no "good" or "bad" ecosystems. Nature
> > lovers may not like or may not find attractive the ecosystems that occur,
> > for example, in a vacant lot in an inner city but that does not make those
> > ecosystems "bad'. There are particular ecosystems that humans want to
> > protect for many reasons and that is fine but these are human value
> > judgements. If a scientist studying any particular ecosystem did not know
> > ahead of time that it was dominated by invasive, exotic plants, it would be
> > impossible for he or she to determine if the plants present on site were
> > native or exotic based on the biology of the plants and their
> > interactions.  Let me cite a real life example to make my point. A few
> > weeks ago a client called me looking for information on how to eradicate
> > invasive, Asiatic bittersweet that she had found on her property.  I asked
> > her if she was certain that it was the Asiatic variety and not the native
> > bittersweet. She replied that she no idea how to distinguish them. I asked
> > her if it turned out that the bittersweet on her property were the native
> > variety, would she still want to eradicate it? Her answer was "of course
> > not". Her only criteria for wanting to eradicate the plant was the
> > supposition that it was exotic. In my mind that is not a good reason to
> > eradicate anything, especaill\y when there are no guarantees that the
> > plants eradicated will not be replaced by something even less desirable.
> > When science is reduced  to name calling to provoke an emotional response,
> > it is not science.
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
> > At 03:13 PM 3/4/2008, Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am very surpised to read the discussions on the semantics, of what to
> >
> > call exotic plants and their impacts on local native ecosystems.
> >
> >
> >
> > I can only speak from the California perspective, where 99% of the
> >
> > understory of our native ecosystems between 2 and 2,000 feet elevation,
> >
> > have been replaced by over 1,000 species of exotic plants.
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you call that effect, using words that express such a complete
> >
> > extermination of native ecosystems, within only 150 years or less?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ecosystem genocide?  Permanent native vegetation extinction, continuing
> >
> > through geologic time?
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,  Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
> >
> > APWG at lists.plantconservation.org < mailto: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 < mailto: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.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar <
> http://download.aim.com/client/aimtoolbar?NCID=aolcmp00300000002586 > for
> your browser.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> > --
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> >     Philip Thomas        Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk project (HEAR)
> >      pt at hear.org         P.O. Box 1272, Puunene, Hawaii  96784  USA
> >                                   http://www.hear.org/
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Gena Fleming, MS, LAc
>www.plantbyplant.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.