[APWG] Plants Alien species Information evaluation and errors

[Addsum-Tony Frates]

Olivia - your approach is logical and correct.   Thank you.   All sources of information 
have to be carefully scrutinized (and in today's world, even more than ever) without 
exception.

Please continue your excellent work (and I also 100% echo what Craig Dremann 
said about what an invaluable service you are providing).  


Tony Frates
Salt Lake City, Utah




Date sent:      	Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:50:58 -0500 (CDT)
From:           	Olivia Kwong <plant at plantconservation.org>
To:             	apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject:        	Re: [APWG] Plants Alien species Information evaluation and errors

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 

As I have mentioned on the various PCA lists at various times, I post news 
article not because they are the best or the most correct information on 
invasive plants for this list and other native plant topics for the other 
lists.  I post them because they're what is being reported by the media to 
the general public.  It is up to list members to check out the information 
and do what they think is appropriate - anything from contacting the 
journalist who has gotten the facts wrong to writing a letter to the 
editor to writing their own articles to get good information out.

This is not a list where only peer reviewed information goes out, that's 
what scientific journals are for.  This list is for the purpose of 
discussing invasive plant issues that affect North America.  The people we 
need to educate are the general public and these news article are what 
they are seeing.  I don't think it's a good idea to pretend that incorrect 
articles aren't being published in newspapers, magazines, and websites. 
I'm also not the expert in the realm of everything to do with invasive 
plants, that's why this is a discussion list where members can post and 
not simply an announcement list.  I post things that I notice and if 
people are interested, they discuss the topic.  If you want to post 
pointing out where an article goes wrong or give further information on 
topics, you should do so because that's the purpose of the list.  And I 
also encourage the invasive plant experts to do any of the things I 
mentioned above in order to contact the source to try to get them to give 
the public with corrected information.

While I am sure there are people out there that assume that anything they 
read on the internet is true, I would rather not make the assumption that 
people on this list feel that way.  I prefer to give everyone the benefit 
of a doubt and assume that they employ critical thinking skills when 
reading things and are interested in finding out what others know.

And for those of you who may be curious as to why I don't post the full 
text of all the articles: Beyond the copyright issues, I post the links to 
the articles because websites tend to track how many people are viewing 
which articles.  The more hits articles covering invasive plant issues 
get, the more likely it is that the publications will notice there is an 
interest in the topic & will expand or at least continue covering them.

Olivia
CPC/PCA
http://www.nps.gov/plants/

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Wayne Tyson wrote:

> Hi, Kim and all; I agree that there is a need to get public information out, 
> but it is even more important that the information not be misleading or 
> incorrect. This list, however, should not rely upon newspaper accounts 
> without verifying the validity of the original research. AFTER that is done, 
> responsible organizations like this one should then take appropriate action, 
> including public information. There may be people on this list who are 
> concerned citizens who could be mislead into action by "reports" that are 
> insufficiently fact-checked. It is up to the professionals on this list to 
> ensure that the information going out is fact-checked or questioned, to help 
> minimize actions based on error as much as possible. So I would encourage 
> healthy skepticism on the part of all who read these messages to resist the 
> temptation to uncritically believe everything/anything they read here or 
> anywhere else.
>
> I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that any particular message 
> is not factual; only that scientific research, and reports about it, are 
> subject to error and misinterpretation and should not form the basis for 
> action by well-intentioned groups and individuals.
>
> I could not agree with you more, Kim, that actions like ordinances need to be 
> carefully written to minimize adverse results. This list could be a good 
> forum for reviewing such ordinances and policies of many types of entities. 
> Open discussion that is centered on ISSUES rather than opinions or 
> personalities can do a lot to maximize the effectiveness of invasive species 
> management. The alternative possibility, I would presume, would have to be 
> that there are no issues worthy of examination and that everything that needs 
> to be known is known.
>
> WT
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kim Yousey" <rjyousey at att.net>
> To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [APWG] APWG Digest, Vol 69, Issue 7, devouring
>
>
>> Hi, WT and all, I agree that we need to check sources. However, it is 
>> useful
>> to understand the public impression of invasives control. It would actually
>> be very useful to target some key sources of public outreach with info on
>> valid control techniques specific to their area, sort of an applied ecology
>> approach. This can be a bit dangerous since people tend to overreact, but
>> nonetheless, some towns are considering ordinances and in order for them to
>> be passed, the public needs some way to gage which type of control methods
>> will work or not work.
>> 
>> Kim Yousey
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Wayne Tyson" <landrest at cox.net>
>> Subject: Re: [APWG] NEWS: Brazilian peppers devour carbon dioxide,
>> study finds
>> To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
>> 
>> PC:
>> 
>> Newspaper accounts, especially those without links to their sources, are
>> often misleading. Reporters accept any published research as valid. It 
>> ain't
>> 
>> necessarily so.
>> 
>> Providing FILES (not just links, as these require big-buck expenditures to
>> download) of the original research in its entirety is essential to get at
>> the validity of the research. Some people actually do rely on news 
>> articles,
>> 
>> and can then spend a lot of time, effort, and money going off half-cocked 
>> on
>> 
>> something invalid.
>> 
>> WT
>> 
>> PS: What green plant doesn't "devour" CO2?
>>


_______________________________________________
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.