[MPWG] Science paper on ginseng
Center for Sustainable Resources
sustainableresources at hotmail.com
Fri Feb 11 18:33:20 CST 2005
Please kindly respond to some questions. It might go a long way for your
cause.
You are correct that I have not read the entire thing. I can’t get it
however I have heard your entire thing personally and viewed your charts
etc.
First what you refer to as the personal stuff. If you want to consider
living in Morgantown as living in WV you are free to do that but you should
not consider looking at ginseng populations within a fifty mile range of
Morgantown and so few at that as producing data that implies anything other
than antidotal claims no better than anyone else living here. If this were
not the case please provide us with a county-by-county accounting of how
much work has been done across the state.
While there are many who would like more information they have their own
concerns about funding etc and are not apt to step up to the plate at this
time even if they strongly disagree with you. So, you see I am really trying
to help you. After all the WVGGA is 200 people strong and in almost every
county of the state however you have no history with almost all of us or for
that matter even extension agents from you own institution.
As an employee of the university I would think you would want to be
responsive to people from your state. Afterall, funding for programs like
yours is tight these days and 8-9hundred letters can go a long way with
regard. there are some good people at you institution and no one wants to
hurt the institution as a whole but where is the partnership,
communications, and working with the people of this state?
Socially you claim to have these concerns but your actions historically have
not indicated a concern for anyone here. In fact each time you publish your
research it always creates concern among the public and in the past some
outrage about how false the information actually turns out to be. Granted
you may be working with great limitations but all the more reason you should
take care in what you refer to as evidence based on limited data.
I know what it is like at universities these days and know that WVU has
money problems but if what you produce seems to have an underlying mission
opposed to the economic needs of the people here you do your institution a
disservice.
You recently presented information that berries ripen at a given time and
added to this that the digging season should be adjusted back to September.
Altering the season seems to be non productive with regard to this issue
since berries ripen according to weather conditions. We don’t need research
for that.
You speak of curtailing the harvest altogether and it comes across because
of history that this may be your true mission. You use the word sham but I
would call it a ruse. People are not going to buy that anymore.
You indicate the problem is with the deer population.
Three years ago I was one of the most outspoken people in the state about
this problem. That was three years ago. While I do not defend the WVDNR for
any reason just on principal, if you want your data to match what you say
you are at least two years behind. There may still be pockets of heavy
population in areas where little hunting happens such as Morgantown, which
is more like a suburb of Pittsburg these days. However, across the state it
is a very different story. Three years ago deer would eat down all of my
ginseng plants in the spring but now it hardly gets browsed. The fact is
that the DNR is telling the truth about a lower population at this time. I
would contend that they have a much higher target population than we should
have yet it is low enough that ginseng can be produced with normal hunting
pressure.
I would also contend that it is unnatural to have a hunting season for deer
just like it is for ginseng. After all, in nature predators eat year round
not just during November. Furthermore with the present number of hunters in
the state it is mathematically impossible to get the deer population any
lower without market hunting such as what is done nowadays in Africa.
Landowners and hunters can only use so much deer meat and beyond that an
incentive would need to apply for further kills. Selected areas with high
numbers could be opened to landowners harvesting a certain number for market
sales of meat.
Lastly about the deer population and your claim that it will be extinct in
100 years: That is just plain inflammatory and you know it. No
overpopulation of one species can last for a hundred years unless
deliberately manipulated by man or something else. That would be biology
101.
How many times in history has this occurred? Probably more than you can
count. Nature always takes its course. If hunting and predation does not do
it then disease will. Populations fluctuate period.
The deer are a part of the threat to ginseng and many other species but not
directly. Whitetails are a weed specie living from food along edges. What
humans do is create edges to feed deer. This means they are here to stay or
are they?
You say you want to release mountain lions. Well, that is already being done
with poor results. The latest one in my area was all over the news. It had
kittens that were left to be destroyed because a local person had to shoot
it. It was on the local news from Charleston and the DNR did not deny having
something to do with it at the time. The fact is that you can’t do that
without bad consequences. The real answer is in understanding how ecosystem
processes work as a whole. You need to get out of your linear box for a
while and walk around. Reintroducing elk would make a lot more sense in
dealing with the deer population. The elk are also a prey species and
therefore cannot regulate their own numbers but they also are herders.
Herding animals draw a crowd of followers we call predators. The elk would
take much of the food from the deer while bringing on predators, which would
keep the entire mess on the move. You should look at what has happened with
the cottonwood trees out west since the wolf came on following the elk
herds. It is still just common sense.
If ginseng season gets curtailed what will happen is that no one will care
again and the entire culture of the plant will be lost then probably the
plant also.
The fact is that you can’t substantiate what you claim because no one else
has the same data and you have not completed this over large areas with all
of the variations that occur. Research for ginseng needs to happen at other
institutions and in the communities. Marshall, WV State, Penn State, and
Cornell all come to mind. You can’t single handedly take out our industry.
We can’t allow that and it makes no sense.
Ginseng growers are going to be a political force and are gaining support in
various venues.
There is nothing to substantiate your data about problem genetics with
ginseng from various locations. You can say it does not move but that in it
self is silly. I can personally show you a plant that was seeded by water
from a half mile up slope. Research of all the ways ginseng becomes mobile
is something, which needs to be studied. The blue jay may actually be linked
closely with ginseng. My concern would be that the animals most responsible
for ginseng may be limited by various stresses and ginseng stops moving. You
want to limit it and isolate it. Nature does not function that way. WV is
not an island in the south pacific.
Lastly, I would contend that there are just as many ginseng plants in the
wild as there was thirty years ago when much of my income came from wild
ginseng. The problem is that the season, which did not exist, then is
preventing people from using it. There are fewer and fewer sengers now a
days and this is not really a good thing. It means the tradition is being
lost and that is a threat to the survival of the specie. Land use change
will happen much more rapidly when people have fewer options for keeping
land in forest.
Fred Hays
>From: Jim McGraw <jmcgraw at wvu.edu>
>To: MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>Subject: [MPWG] Science paper on ginseng
>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:22:35 -0500
>
>Colleagues of the medicinal plants working group.
>
>It is tempting to let Mr. Hays' email to all of you simply find it's way to
>your collective e-trash cans, however, I have learned from past experience
>that it is sometimes better to confront misleading and untrue statements
>directly, rather than hope they will go away.
>
>I would first encourage all of you to examine the article for yourself,
>rather than read news reports or second-hand or third-hand accounts.
>
>I will not take the time here to confront all of Mr. Hays' invectives
>directed at the Fish & Wildlife service. Instead, here I address issues
>aimed at our paper and at me personally.
>
>1. Mr. Hays states that the USFWS pays McGraw to provide the information
>they want. First, the Science study was funded by the National Science
>Foundation, not Fish and Wildlife Service. Prior to that, I did have
>funding from the USFWS, however, I would never take grant money from any
>source if I was told what the outcome of my research should be. That would
>be scientifically unethical, and as a scientist, I would never participate
>in such a sham.
>
>2. Mr. Hays states that I would tell you all ginseng berries ripen at the
>same time no matter the geography or weather. This could not be farther
>from the truth. I have a paper in press with Northeastern Naturalist that
>has the first rangewide data on ginseng berry ripening. What we showed is
>that state-to-state variation is not statistically significant (other than
>one outlier state where we had only 2 populations). There was tremendous
>population-to-population variation within states and lots of variation even
>within populations, some of which is no doubt explained by geography and
>weather. Mr Hays was apparently attempting to discredit me by his blanket
>statement, but he has not read the paper, co-authored, by the way, with 15
>other very knowledgable ginseng botanists.
>
>3. Mr. Hays states that McGraw shows no concern for the people of West
>Virginia...that he comes from elsewhere. First, if you read the Science
>article, and all of our publications, we repeatedly emphasize the cultural
>and economic importance of the wild harvest of ginseng in Appalachia.
>Indeed, in interviews with reporters, I go further and repeatedly state
>that as conservation biologists, one of our prime concerns is preservation
>fo the culture of harvest, because of the tremendous tie this creates
>between people and the land, made all the more special because it is a tie
>between people and an inconspicuous understory plant. This tie is worth
>conserving because it engenders tremendous appreciation for biodiversity.
>We also repeatedly emphasize the economic benefit of the wild harvest. All
>of this is threatened if white-tailed deer populations browse populations
>toward extinction.
>
>As for being from elsewhere, I have lived in WV longer than anywhere else
>in my life. 22.5 years. If that disqualifies me from making scientific
>observations on ginseng, then I guess you'll buy Mr. Hays' arguments.
>
>4. Claims that the deer population is in decline simply do not hold up to
>real data. I do not claim to be a wildlife biologist, but there was one on
>Mary Ann Furedi's committee who advised her on estimating deer densities.
>Densities near our ginseng populations (which are quite spread out over the
>state) were 2 - 5 times pre-settlement levels (up to 49 deer per square
>km).
>
>5. Mr. Hays claims that ginseng in WV is not threatened. I don't believe
>ginseng is listed as threatened in WV. In fact we have published the first
>ever estimates of total population sizes, which are in the millions.
>Nevertheless, it is CITES Appendix II listed, which means harvest must be
>annually certified to be nondetrimental. I believe FWS has certified it as
>such annually since its original listing. We do have other studies ongoing
>that examine the effects of harvesting, and variable harvesting practices,
>on wild ginseng populations. Please stay tuned for that story.
>
>6. Our Science study simply showed, by demographic modeling with an
>outstanding data set (credit goes to Mary Ann Furedi for that), that at
>current rates of deer browse, virtually all wild populations of ginseng are
>at risk over the next century. It won't happen this year or next, but if
>current trends continue, the ginseng trade is in for major trouble. And
>that would be sad.
>
>With kind regards,
>Jim McGraw
>--
>*************************************************************************************************************************************
>The environment is a national security issue.
>
>James B. McGraw, Eberly Professor of Biology
>Director of Graduate Studies
>Dept. of Biology, P. O. Box 6057
>West Virginia University
>Morgantown, WV 26506-6057
>Phone: 304-293-5201 x 31532
>
>Office: Room 5204, Life Sciences Building
>Lab: Room 5209/5211
>Dept. web page: http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology
>JBM's web page: http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/faculty/mcgraw.html
>JBM's extensive personal web page:
>http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/faculty/JBMPersonalSite/index.html
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>MPWG mailing list
>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org
>with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
> Disclaimer
> Any advice given on
>this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc. reflects ONLY the opinion
>of the individual who posts the message. The information contained in posts
>is not intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical
>advice relative to your specific medical condition or question. All medical
>and other healthcare information that is discussed on this list should be
>carefully reviewed by the individual reader and their qualified healthcare
>professional. Posts do not reflect any official opinions or positions of
>the Plant Conservation Alliance.
More information about the MPWG
mailing list