<html>
<body>
<font size=3>Lists are designed to identify problems and potential
solutions, only an early step in a long road to solving problems.
<br><br>
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
<a href="http://www.cogongrass.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.cogongrass.org/</a> <br><br>
Assigning colors to such lists is extremely unfortunate, as it lends
itself to turning the discussion to looking at ethnic analogies, which is
illogical.<br>
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. <br><br>
Economic problems for who? Farmers, fisheries managers, forestry
managers, wildlife managers, parks managers, etc., etc.<br><br>
Thanx<br><br>
Bill Stringer<br><br>
At 07:43 PM 3/1/2010, Gena Fleming wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">(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.)<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Even the press release on the TWPD website leaves questions unanswered,
referring to the project simply as "creating an approved plant
list". <br>
<br>
Well, now that sounds pretty benign. But what does that
mean? What happens if you have a plant that's not
approved?<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<a href="http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/81streports/tpwd/issue1.pdf">
http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/81streports/tpwd/issue1.pdf</a><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I find this report disturbing for a number of reasons.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The failure of a "black list" to solve all problems does not
justify a "white list."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
4) On the final page of the report, under
"Modifications", is the statement <b>"Give TPWD
regulatory authority over invasive terrestrial
species."</b> So, if this is just about aquatics,
apparently, it's just because they're taking one step at a time.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
So what? <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
So the United States does not respect the right of other countries to
disallow importation of genetically engineered crops out of concern for
protecting<i> their</i> 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?<br>
<br>
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)!<br>
<br>
Here is a list of plants, genetically engineered, that have been
completely deregulated (or, as indicated, such "nonregulated"
status is pending):<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html">
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html</a><br>
<br>
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".<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Nature is not concerned with maintaining the economic status quo.
That's not her imperative; she has a larger and more important agenda.
<br>
<br>
ALTERNATIVES<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Black list, white list. Help! Can' we really do no
better than this? <br>
<br>
best regards,<br>
<br>
Gena<br><br>
<br>
<br>
On 1 March 2010 14:04, John Barr
<<a href="mailto:jmbarr@academicplanet.com">
jmbarr@academicplanet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>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</i></b>. The identified problem is not invasives per se, but
plants that threaten the alien</i></b> Bass fishery. (Ironic smile
intended).<br><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
<dd>John<br><br>
<br>
<dd>On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:29 PM, Robert Layton Beyfuss wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>How nice to see that the government will now decide what plants
the<br>
<dd>citizens may or may not possess. Thanks Big Brother.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<dd>
<a href="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</a>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<dd>Department to begin invasive plant program<br>
<dd>By Mike Leggett<br>
<dd>AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF<br>
<dd>Published: 7:22 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 20, 2010<br><br>
<dd>The Texas Legislature issued orders last session for the Texas Parks
and<br>
<dd>Wildlife Department to begin compiling a comprehensive list of
invasive<br>
<dd>and non-native plants and to publish a "white list" of
plants that would<br>
<dd>be legal to possess, grow or sell in Texas. Any plant not on the
list<br>
<dd>would be considered noxious and illegal.<br><br>
<dd>See the link above for the full article text.<br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:APWG@lists.plantconservation.org">
APWG@lists.plantconservation.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</a>
<br><br>
<dd>Disclaimer<br>
<dd>Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY
the<br>
<dd>opinion of the individual posting the message.<br>
</blockquote><br><br>
<br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:APWG@lists.plantconservation.org">
APWG@lists.plantconservation.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</a>
<br><br>
<dd>Disclaimer<br>
<dd>Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
opinion of the individual posting the message.</blockquote><br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:APWG@lists.plantconservation.org">
APWG@lists.plantconservation.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</a>
<br><br>
<dd>Disclaimer<br>
<dd>Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
opinion of the individual posting the message.<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list<br>
APWG@lists.plantconservation.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</a>
<br><br>
Disclaimer<br>
Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
opinion of the individual posting the message.</blockquote></body>
</html>