<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Melinda and others contributing to this
message string:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I've been noticing a long string of
messages here which are relevant to the Electronic Public Discussion referenced
in the Subject box which APHIS has currently running, and which will be
continued into February. Please, if you wish APHIS to take notice,
copy your previous messages into the attached discussion, and CC the electronic
discussion with any follow-up postings. I would do it myself, but
they are your messages, and belong to you. We at APHIS certainly
would like to see this discussion in our Electronic Public Discussion record.
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The following is the discussion notice.
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service is hosting an electronic public discussion on methods that can
be used to evaluate the potential of imported plants to become invasive
species if they are introduced into the United States. Any interested person
can participate in the electronic discussion, which will allow participants
to upload files and interact with other participants and with APHIS staff.
The electronic public discussion will be held from November 27, 2006 to
January 26, 2007.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Please see the Federal Register Notice
for details: </font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">On November 27, 2006 a link to the discussion
will be posted on this website: </font><a href=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html</font></a>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Please forward this notice to others you
think may be interested. Here is a list of people who have already
received the message: </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Regards,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Alan V. Tasker, Ph.D. <br>
National Noxious Weed Program Manager<br>
<br>
USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service<br>
Plant Protection & Quarantine<br>
Emergency and Domestic Programs <br>
Invasive Species & Pest Management<br>
<br>
(301) 734-5708<br>
Fax (301) 734-8584<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Melinda Mohrman" <MMohrman@chesterfield.mo.us></b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">12/19/2006 06:02 PM</font>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> To:
"Bob Beyfuss" <rlb14@cornell.edu>,
<Patricia_DeAngelis@fws.gov>, <apwg@lists.plantconservation.org>,
<mpwg@lists.plantconservation.org>, <native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org>,
<rwg@lists.plantconservation.org></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc:
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Subject:
Re: [APWG] [MPWG] Electronic Public
Discussion: Evaluating the
Invasive Potential of Imported Plants</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>When plants are transported to areas outside of their
native habitat,<br>
they are exposed to areas where they may not have any natural population<br>
control. If they reproduce more aggressively than the native species,<br>
they are invasive. Many exotic plants are not considered invasive<br>
because they do not react this way to their new environments. Banning<br>
invasive plants is not a "knee jerk" reaction, this is something
that<br>
only happens after a plant has proven itself to be detrimental to its<br>
new environment. It is not bureaucrats who are making these decisions,<br>
it is the plant science professionals who are urging them to take<br>
action. You mentioned groups which save native plants so that highways<br>
can be installed and exotic plants used on the roadsides- one of the<br>
reasons this legislation matters is because it does not allow exotic<br>
plants to be used in these ways. In an effort to correct past mistakes,<br>
many states are enacting programs to establish native plants along<br>
roadsides in order to stop the spread of these invasive plants. I'm<br>
dismayed at the thought that their might be people out there who are<br>
fighting for invasive plants, when so many of us are fighting against<br>
them.<br>
<br>
>>> Bob Beyfuss <rlb14@cornell.edu> 12/19/2006 4:40 PM >>><br>
The concept of plants in themselves being capable of being "invasive"<br>
is <br>
silly. It is attributing human qualities (implying malice in this case)<br>
to <br>
unthinking organisms. Plants live, grow, reproduce (some are very<br>
efficient <br>
at this) and die. New or different plants do not displace established <br>
existing plants in healthy, undisturbed ecosystems. Plants do not<br>
appear <br>
anywhere due to "spontaneous generation". They are brought in
by humans<br>
or <br>
animals. They may colonize or become naturalized in (neither colonize<br>
nor <br>
naturalize imply malice) areas less suited to so called "native"<br>
species <br>
because human activity has allowed this to happen.<br>
<br>
I am offended at the concept that "exotic" plants are somehow
inferior<br>
to <br>
"native" plants. Especially since 90% of my diet and that of
most of us<br>
is <br>
derived from"exotic" plants. Demonizing "exotic" plants
as "invasive <br>
exotic" is inherently offensive . Which term is less offensive
to you<br>
<br>
"Invasive exotic" or "opportunistic colonizer"? Now
try to answer that<br>
<br>
question if you happen to be from the Middle east (maybe Iraq), Asia or<br>
<br>
Africa or Europe and you hear or read an American talking about<br>
"invasive <br>
exotic species". I am sure the people in the middle east or anywhere<br>
else <br>
in the world must enjoy reading about our efforts to "combat"
(another<br>
<br>
wonderful term) "invasive, exotic species".<br>
<br>
Personally I like the term "noxious weed" in which a weed is
defined as<br>
"an <br>
unwanted plant". By this definition a "volunteer" (i.e.
unplanted) <br>
soybean <br>
plant growing in a corn field is a weed. A "noxious weed"
is a <br>
particularly undesirable weed. Why do we have to invent new terms that<br>
are <br>
as offensive as "exotic invasive" or even worse "alien,
invasive"?<br>
<br>
What I find even more troubling is the knee jerk reaction to their <br>
presence. Lets just kill all the bad plants we don't like anymore and <br>
everything will be fine. First we gather all their names up and put<br>
them on <br>
a list. Target these for extermination. Next we will make up more lists<br>
of <br>
plants that "might" be "invasive" in the future and
ban them too. Here<br>
in <br>
NY State we already have county executives issuing "executive decrees"<br>
<br>
banning the use of any but "native" species in any future plantings
on<br>
<br>
county property. How dare they do this? Yet, this is a logical<br>
extension of <br>
the current polices we are formulating. Why should we be denied<br>
daffodils, <br>
daylillies, tulips or apple trees or Kentucky bluegrass (another exotic<br>
<br>
import) because someone has decided that they are evil?<br>
<br>
In the long run, and I must emphasize looking at the long run or the<br>
big <br>
picture, every single environment on this planet will ultimately<br>
determine <br>
what plant and animal species survives there, not some bureaucrat in <br>
Washington with a pen making up lists of good versus bad plants based<br>
on <br>
his or her opinion. This process is called natural selection and it is<br>
<br>
constant. Black locust is OK in PA because it is "native" but
bad in NY<br>
<br>
because it is exotic? This is crazy. The same species of Magnolias<br>
growing <br>
in China are identical to some of those growing here. At one time there<br>
was <br>
one continent so what exactly is "native" and why are "native"
plants <br>
superior to Non native? Are "native people, i.e. blue blooded Americans<br>
<br>
inherently superior to immigrants because they were born here? How long<br>
<br>
must one be here to be considered a "native"?<br>
<br>
Global warming will have a far more profound effect on plant species<br>
and <br>
their distribution than some group of people spraying herbicides on<br>
plants <br>
they don't like.<br>
<br>
An interesting research project along that line might be to study<br>
exactly <br>
how plants are distributed and become established within any given <br>
community. While highly paid administrators are forming invasive
plant<br>
<br>
councils, attending countless meetings and making regulations, the<br>
local <br>
highway department employee (@ $10 per hour) is transplanting garlic <br>
mustard and Japanese knotweed every time they move the Grade-all<br>
machine <br>
from one place to another. The people picking up garbage along the<br>
highway <br>
are also picking up weed seeds and moving them down the road. All the <br>
campers, mountain bikers, hikers, 4 wheelers, skiers, and other outdoor<br>
<br>
recreationist constantly introduce exotic stuff into the environment. <br>
Should we pass regulations banning these activities? No, it is much<br>
easier <br>
to blame the plants for the problems and spray them with herbicides. Or<br>
is it?<br>
<br>
I recently spoke with the local Executive Director of the Nature <br>
Conservancy for the Catskill Mountain region and he estimated that he<br>
could <br>
easily spend 90% or more of their total annual operating budget trying<br>
to <br>
eradicate only garlic mustard and only from roadsides in this region<br>
and <br>
the net result would be that it would be required to do this every year<br>
<br>
indefinitely with no chance of eradication at all. Is this a good use<br>
of <br>
our limited resources? Good organizations like Ohio's Rural Action<br>
Network <br>
are forced to rescue plants from proposed new highways which soon will<br>
have <br>
their shoulders colonized by "exotic, invasive plants". So, should
we<br>
ban <br>
the building of new highways or prohibit logging or timber harvest<br>
because <br>
of the inevitable consequences? Maybe we should ban all imports of all<br>
<br>
exotic plants or better yet prohibit cultivation of all but native<br>
plants! <br>
Or do we proceed as carefully as possible with these projects and<br>
realize <br>
that there will surely be unwanted consequences as a result?.<br>
<br>
Most of the plants now considered as evil, invasive exotic species were<br>
<br>
introduced for some very good reasons and many of them are still great<br>
<br>
choices for many situations. If not for Norway maple there would be no<br>
<br>
street trees in some stressed locations. Like the soybean plant in the<br>
<br>
cornfield, one situation's weed is another situations wildflower. <br>
Black <br>
locust is a wonderful alternative to CCA pressure treated wood, many,<br>
many <br>
species of songbirds feast on the berries of the exotic honeysuckles, <br>
Autumn and Russian olive, bittersweet, barberry, multiflora rose, and<br>
on <br>
and on.<br>
<br>
I don't like the idea of banning books, banning plants or banning<br>
anything <br>
because it is politically correct. All this talk about "combating<br>
invasive <br>
exotics" and the connotations of this language makes me very
nervous.<br>
We <br>
are already engaged in far too many wars for our own good and for the<br>
good <br>
of our planet.<br>
<br>
Thanks for reading.<br>
Bob Beyfuss<br>
<br>
At 11:20 AM 12/13/2006, Patricia_DeAngelis@fws.gov wrote:<br>
<br>
>Excuse the cross-postings but it looks like there is something in this<br>
for <br>
>everyone!<br>
><br>
>This discussion is already underway! A summary of the purpose
and how<br>
you <br>
>can participate is below. To see the full notice, see: <br>
>http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-18768.htm<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-<br>
- - <br>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br>
><br>
>SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health<br>
>Inspection Service (APHIS) is hosting an electronic public discussion<br>
>on methods that can be used to evaluate the potential of imported<br>
>plants to become invasive species if they are introduced into the<br>
>United States. Any interested person can register for the electronic<br>
>discussion, which will allow participants to upload files and<br>
interact<br>
>with other participants and with APHIS staff.<br>
><br>
>DATES: The electronic public discussion will be held from November<br>
27,<br>
>2006 to January 26, 2007.<br>
><br>
>FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Polly Lehtonen, Senior Staff<br>
>Officer, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700<br>
>River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8758.<br>
><br>
>QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: We would like participants in the<br>
>electronic discussion to specifically address the following six<br>
questions,<br>
>although general comments on the issue of evaluating invasiveness<br>
will<br>
>be accepted as well.<br>
> 1. What criteria, other than whether the plant has a
history of<br>
>invasiveness elsewhere, are most useful to determine the invasiveness<br>
>of a plant introduced into the United States for the first time?<br>
> 2. When there is little or no existing scientific literature
or<br>
>other information describing the invasiveness of a plant species, how<br>
>much should we extrapolate from information on congeners (other<br>
species<br>
>within the same genus)?<br>
> 3. What specific scientific experiments should be conducted
to<br>
best<br>
>evaluate a plant's invasive potential? Should these experiments be<br>
>conducted in a foreign area, in the United States, or both?<br>
> 4. How should the results of such experiments be interpreted?<br>
>Specifically, what results should be interpreted as providing<br>
>conclusive information for a regulatory decision?<br>
> 5. If field trials are necessary to determine the invasive<br>
>potential of a plant, under what conditions should the research be<br>
>conducted to prevent the escape of the plant into the environment?<br>
> 6. What models or techniques are being used by the nursery<br>
>industry, weed scientists, seed companies, botanical gardens, and<br>
>others to screen plants that have not yet been widely introduced into<br>
>the United States for invasiveness? What species have been rejected<br>
by<br>
>these evaluators as a result of the use of these evaluation methods?<br>
><br>
>ACCESSING THE ELECTRONIC DISCUSSION:<br>
> While anyone can access the discussion and read the comments,<br>
>registration is required in order to participate in the discussion.<br>
You<br>
>will be asked to register at the time you post your comment. <br>
Participants<br>
>will be required to enter their name and e-mail address. Affiliation<br>
and<br>
>mailing address are optional. Only the participant names will be<br>
publicly <br>
>displayed.<br>
><br>
>The discussion will be accessible through a link on Plant Protection<br>
and<br>
>Quarantine's Web page for the nursery stock revision, <br>
><http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html.<br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>PCA's Medicinal Plant Working Group mailing list<br>
>MPWG@lists.plantconservation.org <br>
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org<br>
<br>
><br>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to<br>
MPWG-request@lists.plantconservation.org <br>
>with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.<br>
><br>
>Disclaimer<br>
>Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc.
<br>
>reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message.
The<br>
<br>
>information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a
<br>
>substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific
<br>
>medical condition or question. All medical and other healthcare <br>
>information that is discussed on this list should be carefully<br>
reviewed by <br>
>the individual reader and their qualified healthcare professional.<br>
Posts <br>
>do not reflect any official opinions or positions of the Plant <br>
>Conservation Alliance.<br>
<br>
***************************************************************<br>
This email should be considered "unofficial communication"<br>
and does not necessarily reflect the official position of<br>
the City of Chesterfield. An "official position" of the<br>
City shall only be communicated in letter form, using<br>
City letterhead.<br>
***************************************************************<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list<br>
APWG@lists.plantconservation.org<br>
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org<br>
<br>
Disclaimer
<br>
Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion
of the individual posting the message.<br>
</tt></font>
<br>