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

Tue Mar 2 09:49:11 CST 2010

Lists are designed to identify problems and potential solutions, only 
an early step in a long road to solving problems.

What happens if you have a plant that is not approved?  Example 
cogongrass.  Nurseries were (and some still are) selling Imperata 
cylindrica.  Several states have recently outlawed the sale of this 
plant, because we are trying to use the terrible experience of the 
gulf states to head off the problem in SC and NC.  See 
http://www.cogongrass.org/

Assigning colors to such lists is extremely unfortunate, as it lends 
itself to turning the discussion to looking at ethnic analogies, 
which is illogical.
The logical approach is an invasive plants list and a native 
alternatives list.  Destroying infestations of invasive plants is 
only the first step.  Native, non-invasive species need to be used to 
help re-vegetate such areas to help prevent re-infestation.

Economic problems for who?  Farmers, fisheries managers, forestry 
managers, wildlife managers, parks managers, etc., etc.

Thanx

Bill Stringer

At 07:43 PM 3/1/2010, Gena Fleming wrote:
>(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>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>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 
><<mailto:jmbarr at academicplanet.com>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>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
>>><mailto:APWG at lists.plantconservation.org>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
>><mailto:APWG at lists.plantconservation.org>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
><mailto:APWG at lists.plantconservation.org>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/20100302/5d95b6dc/attachment.html>