[APWG] Texas Invasive Plant review applies to Aquatic plants only(?)

[Gena Fleming]

(Note:  I am also posting this on the MPWG, because I feel this legislation
also can eventually have an impact on which plants can be grown for
botanical medicine.)

WIth respect to John's comments, I agree, there are many things that are not
made clear.  Beginning with burying this story in the middle of the Sports
section.

Even the press release on the TWPD website leaves questions unanswered,
referring to the project simply as "creating an approved plant list".

Well, now that sounds pretty benign.  But what does that mean?   What
happens if you have a plant that's not approved?

The most complete explanation I have been able to find thus far is the TPWD
Sunset Final Report dated July 2009, which you may link to here:
 http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/81streports/tpwd/issue1.pdf

I would like to first make it clear that I do not suspect the people who
drafted this had anything but good intentions.  But good intentions can be
manipulated and taken advantage of.  People can be nudged in certain
directions.

I find this report disturbing for a number of reasons.

1)  The report is entitled:  "Texas Parks and Wildlife Cannot Minimize Risk
from Harmful Exoic Aquatic Plants Under Its Current Regulatory Approach".
The current aproach is to have a "black list" of unapproved plants.  Since
the "black list" aproach is "not a cost-effective approach", and the
opposite of black is white, the Review opts for a "white list" approach with
seemingly no consideration at all given to any other
alternative approaches.  While it includes directing TPWD to provide
"greater information to the public", the weight given to this is relatively
miniscule compared to the compilation of a white list.

The failure of a "black list" to solve all problems does not justify a
"white list."

2) The logic of how a white list approach will help mitigate the "invasive"
plant issues is a little shaky.  It does not offer help for current
problems, and it seems blind to its own examples of deliberate
introduction of "invasives" by the federal government.

3)  It disturbs me that plants are not allowed that pose "environmental,
economic, or health problems".  My concern is with the inclusion of
"economic problem" as grounds for exclusion.    Economic problem for whom?

4)  On the final page of the report, under "Modifications", is the statement
*"Give  TPWD regulatory authority over invasive terrestrial species."*   So,
if this is just about aquatics, apparently, it's just because they're taking
one step at a time.

5)  Instead of giving a rational argument as to how this approach would be
genuinely instrumental, we are given as a reason that, "The nations of
Israel, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand" have this kind of system.


So what?

South Africa really stands out because most African countries do not allow
genetically engineered organisms, with the huge exception of South Africa..
In fact, it's hard not to notice the parallel of "white list" policy with
countries that allow for GMOs.  This is reinforced by he inclusion of Hawaii
as a state having "strong white list legislation".  Hawaii has more GMO
field trials than any other state in the USA.

It is not that TPWD has any concern or opinion one way or another about
GMOs.  In fact, that's the point. I doubt the people who approved the
recommendation are paying much attention to GMOs at all.  But that doesn't
mean that the policy doesn't figure into a bigger picture.  And yes, I know
that USDA and APHIS are federal, and TPWD is state.

But look at the facts.  The United States has refused to sign the Cartagena
Protocol for Biosafety, which gives nations the right to exercise the
precautionary principle with respect to genetically altered organisms.  The
United States does not respect the right of other countries to refuse
importation of GMOs, arguing instead that they are interfering with free
trade.

So the United States does not respect the right of other countries to
disallow importation of genetically engineered crops out of concern for
protecting* their* local ecologies, but the direction of legislation within
the United States is to have "white lists" of plants that are approved to
have in your possession, and if your plant is not on the list, it is a
punishable offense?

Meanwhile, the "regulation" of GMOs within the United States is
literally called a DEregulation process.  How do we know these plants won't
prove invasive or cause other problems down the road?  Especially with
Eucalyptus being genetically engineered to be cold tolerant (and planted in
Texas)!

Here is a list of plants, genetically engineered, that have been completely
deregulated (or, as indicated, such "nonregulated" status is pending):

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html

This means there is no more tracking or checking on these plants at all,
whatsoever.  They are completly unmonitored, untracked and unlabeled.
They're approved. (I think that's the same as being on a "white list".)  All
the GMOs in field trials are on a track to eventually petition for
"nonregulation".

It would of course be more convenient for corporations to have "white lists"
set up ahead of time, and then they could conduct research (with taxpayer
money) only on those species and not have to worry about it down the road.

So, I realize some may characterize me as a conspiracy lunatic and seek to
reassure me that TPWD has no such intentions.  Again, I fully believe and
understand that TPWD has no such intentions.  But we all need to have
responsibility to look at how our actions fit into a larger context.   And
the context emerging is one that can make it illegal to posess plants that
cause "economic harm", while giving a green light to organisms that are
created with gene guns and are owned by multinational corporations.

Nature is not concerned with maintaining the economic status quo.  That's
not her imperative; she has a larger and more important agenda.

ALTERNATIVES

Are there not more creative approaches we could use?  How about a mandate to
have every public school campus include local ecology in their curriculum?
How about a mandate that ever school have a nature educational program (that
is more extensive than memorizing "white lists")?  How about a mandate that
every school adopt a project of wetland/prairie/forest restoration and/or
wildflower field creation on site?

Maybe if kids were involved with nature in more meaningful ways, they would
have less desire to own aquariums or other unnatural, caged forms of
"nature" that include exotic organisms for entertainment purposes.

If necessary, perhaps we should only allow rental boats in fragile waterways
(as opposed to those that travel from place to place).  This may not be the
answer either.  But let's not supplant the regulatory principles of Nature
with those of government bureaucracy.  She has more wisdom than our
regulatory agencies.

Black list, white list.   Help!  Can' we really do no better than this?

best regards,

Gena



On 1 March 2010 14:04, John Barr <jmbarr at academicplanet.com> wrote:

>   What is not made clear in the headline, nor in the body of the story is
> that TPWD is currently limiting its review to *aquatic plants*.  The
> identified problem is not invasives per se, but plants that threaten the *
> alien* Bass fishery. (Ironic smile intended).
>
> As to the snarky comments, I can only add that this is a State review by
> one of the most "conservative" state legislatures in the country.  I thought
> Big Brother only pertained to the Federal Government.
>
> John
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:29 PM, Robert Layton Beyfuss wrote:
>
>  How nice to see that the government will now decide what plants the
> citizens may or may not possess. Thanks Big Brother.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.statesman.com/sports/outdoors/department-to-begin-invasive-plant-program-261616.html
>
>
> Department to begin invasive plant program
>
> By Mike Leggett
>
> AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
>
> Published: 7:22 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 20, 2010
>
>
> The Texas Legislature issued orders last session for the Texas Parks and
>
> Wildlife Department to begin compiling a comprehensive list of invasive
>
> and non-native plants and to publish a "white list" of plants that would
>
> be legal to possess, grow or sell in Texas. Any plant not on the list
>
> would be considered noxious and illegal.
>
>
> See the link above for the full article text.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20100301/d6972558/attachment.html>