<html>
<body>
Hi Bill<br>
My comments are in <b>bold type<br>
</b>At 03:47 PM 5/17/2007, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><i><u>Hi, Bob and all. I
saw this thread and had to horn in.<br><br>
</u></i>"Hi Craig<br>
The reason why exotic seeds have been planted so extensively is because
<br>
many have been identified as having some very valuable virtues for humans
<br>
and wildlife and many also do serve valuable ecological roles. You seem
to <br>
think that all exotic plants are bad and this is simply nonsense, 90% of
<br>
our food supply is derived from exotic plants and animals. Most Americans
<br>
could not get through a single day without eating or using exotic plants
<br>
and animals. <br>
<i><u>Bob, the contribution of exotic species to our food supply is
probably more like 97%, <br>
but that point is totally unrelated here. Have you seen anyone
advocating converting <br>
the Corn Belt back to tall grass prairies?</u></i></blockquote><b>Yes,
while reintroducing the Buffalo and getting rid of cattle. There are all
sorts of fanatics out there! <br><br>
<br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">20 to 30% off ALL
plant species in the continental United <br>
States are exotic in origin. The overwhelming majority have become <br>
naturalized and are either benign or useful. <br><br>
<i><u>Also 86% of the listed weeds (noxious and otherwise) in California
are introduced. <br>
In Pennsylvania 100% of the listed weeds are introduced, while Ohio lists
only <br>
1 native species out of 18 as a weed.</u></i></blockquote><br>
<b>OK so we ban the 97% that are good to protect us from 3% that are bad?
A weed is an unwanted plant and just because someone thinks that only
exotic plants are unwanted is simply bias on their part. Beech
sprouts, striped maple, poison ivy are all weeds in my forest. Native
weeds but still weeds. I object to the bias against exotics simply
because they are exotic. <br><br>
<br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">A few are invasive but
damning <br>
all exotics based on the negative attributes of a very few is much like
<br>
condemning an entire race of people based on the actions of a few. Should
<br>
we engage in a campaign to eradicate everything that is exotic simple
<br>
because it is not native? <br><br>
<i><u>Should we continue a campaign of introducing and seeding exotic
species willy-nilly?</u></i></blockquote><br>
<b>I don't think most of the introductions are "willy
nilly" Why would someone introduce something "willy
nilly"? This makes no sense to me.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><i> <br>
</i>Should we douse our fields, forest and roadsides with chemical
herbicides <br>
simply because we don't like the foreign plants that are growing there?
<br><br>
<i><u>Bob, if you think that is the message of the vast majority of
native plant enthusiasts <br>
and organizations, as well as local, state and federal agencies, then you
may be <br>
prone to major over-interpretation.</u></i></blockquote><br>
<b>The subject line reads "Exotic free by 2011" It does not say
"invasive exotic free" or "weed free" or
"noxious weed" free. What am I misinterpreting? The remedy to
the "threat of invasive, exotic species is to kill them" .
Chemical companies that sell herbicides like this policy very much.
<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Who is going to pay for such
an eradication and <br>
what would be the result? Nobody likes invasive plants that may displace
<br>
native plants but unless the conditions that led to invasions are <br>
addressed, attempts at eradication of well established exotics are a
waste <br>
of time and money. Weed seeds, as defined on seed packages, are simply
<br>
seeds that are not of the same species as what is being purchased.
<br><br>
<i><u>Is that why noxious weed seeds showing up in analyses of crop seed
lots <br>
is grounds for taking that entire seed lot off the market?<br>
<b>Yes, if the percentage of weed seeds is higher than can be reasonably
expected. </u></i></b></blockquote><br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Weeds are unwanted plants,
poison ivy is an unwanted plant that most would <br>
consider a weed whether is it is native or exotic. Do some research on
the <br>
exotic plants you mention and you will learn why they have been
planted.<br><br>
<i><u>We all need to continue doing research and learning. It might
be instructive to <br>
investigate something like the salt-cedar species</u>:
<a href="http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/tama1.htm%A0%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/tama1.htm </a> , <br>
<u>or cogongrass:</u>
<a href="http://www.cogongrass.org/%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://www.cogongrass.org/ </a> .<br><br>
</i>Alfalfa, for example, is perhaps the most important forage crop for
dairy <br>
cattle in the United States. <br><br>
As for damaging native ecosystems, how do you define damage? <br><br>
<i>N<u>ative ecosystems are communities of native plants, native animals,
native microbes, <br>
all living together on a landscape (soil). The composition of those
communities and <br>
that soil is the result of co-evolution of the organisms and that
landscape (soil) under <br>
the influence of thousands to millions of years of the climatic history
of the region. <br>
Drastically disturb (fire, hurricane, plow, etc.) such an ecosystem, and
within a period of <br>
years, depending on location, that ecosystem, if left alone, will
self-restore to its original state.<br><br>
Introducing invasive exotic plants through arrogance or ignorance can
derail that ability of the <br>
native system to self-restore, or certainly take the self-restoration to
a different endpoint. <br>
We humans have much to learn at the knee of such
ecosystems.</u></i></blockquote><br>
<b>Self restore? In the past 50 years the levels of atmospheric CO2 have
risen from 2% to 3%. This has had a profound effect on plant species
composition. Investigate some basic plant physiology. Many (C4) weeds
thrive at the higher CO2 levels whereas other (C3) species suffer.
Succession does not go backwards by definition. You cannot restore
an ecosystem that has been altered by climatic changes unless you change
the climate. The thought that we can recreate the ecosystems that existed
even 100 years ago, when the climate was very different than now,
by simply killing the new plants off and replanting the old ones, is
ridiculous, let alone recreating the climate that existed thousands or
millions of years ago. People and organizations have decided that
they like the ecosystems that existed before 1650, That is OK with me but
no one will ever recreate those ecosystems. <br><br>
<br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">In the broadest sense any
and all human activities could be <br>
construed as "damaging" to natural ecosystems in the extent
that they alter <br>
"natures" normal pathways. This is certainly true for
virtually all agriculture. <br><br>
What would be the ecological effect of widespread herbicide applications
to get rid of <br>
exotic plants? Be careful what you wish for! No court has ever
ruled in favor of ecosystems as plaintiffs. <br><br>
<i><u>Bob, the courts have not been very kind to the thousands of Enron
employees who had their pension <br>
funds sacked either. Don't hold up the judicial system as an
example of fair and wise.</u></i></blockquote><br>
<b>I don't always agree with the courts, nor do I agree with our foreign
policy but I must live with it and in the big picture it has framed our
society. I am not an anarchist. I would have to say that overall, our
judicial system has been fair and wise. <br><br>
<br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This is a subjective notion
and not science.<br><br>
<i><u>Another contact for you to consider:<br><br>
Finger Lakes Native Plant Society of Ithaca <br>
</u>
<a href="http://www.fingerlakesnativeplantsociety.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.fingerlakesnativeplantsociety.org/</a><br><br>
<br>
</i>Bob Beyfuss<br><br>
<i>Thanx<br><br>
Bill Stringer<br><br>
<br><br>
</i></blockquote></body>
</html>