[MPWG] Science paper on ginseng
Center for Sustainable Resources
sustainableresources at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 12 09:05:41 CST 2005
Yes, dogs of any kind will affect an elk herd, just give them time. They are
very efficient at this.
They take the young as they are born. One problem in this area now is that
coyotes are doing this to cattle while birthing. They in fact take out many
deer in the same way. You don't see this because the adult is left but the
young were never around long enough to be noticed.
Actually you would not want restrictions on hunting coyotes if you want more
of them and less deer. An irony is that hunting pressure actually stimulates
their reproduction.
If the deer were moving more in a natural system they are less of a problem
on specific sites. Hunting and predation keeps them going. Not having the
presence of pack hunters is where we have the worst problems with them.
What do you have against elk? Did I spell it wrong? Fred Hays
>From: "Bradley Eichelberger" <beichelberger0 at hotmail.com>
>To: sustainableresources at hotmail.com, jmcgraw at wvu.edu,
>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>Subject: RE: [MPWG] Science paper on ginseng
>Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:35:31 -0500
>
>Deer have been experiencing a population boom for some time now.
>
>If you are referring to coyotes as the pack hunters growing as we speak, do
>you really think that they are going to be influenced by a large ungulate
>such as elk? Look at the reintroduction of elk into Pennsylvania. I do
>not see pack hunters increasing there necessarily.
>
>The references that you refer to are occurring in Yellowstone, which is a
>different system. Besides wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone so
>they are protected. Coyotes however are not protected.
>
>Even if this was sound, how long would it take for a elk reintroduction
>project to be implemented, for the pack hunter equilibrium to take effect?
>By the time things came around, impacts on vegetation could be regrettable.
>
>Liapold is actually spelled Leopold.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Brad Eichelberger
>
>>From: "Center for Sustainable Resources"
>><sustainableresources at hotmail.com>
>>To: beichelberger0 at hotmail.com, jmcgraw at wvu.edu,
>>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>>Subject: RE: [MPWG] Science paper on ginseng
>>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:55:01 -0900
>>
>>Could you please give one example of one animal in natural history that
>>has had a population explosion which lasted 100 years.? While I realize
>>that through management practices it is possible to maintain a population
>><although it would be difficult, at high numbers it just has not happened
>>naturally. Biology 101 will tell you that we will have self regualyed high
>>numbers of pack hunting predatores and or disease in the deer herd at some
>>point. Thus far hunting and predation have kept that in check to a certain
>>extent but it will not last. The real nightmare will be when the pop of
>>pack hunting dogs whether coy dogs, coyotes, or wolves is at a level that
>>the deer pop drops quickly. those animals have a widely varied diet and
>>will take a toll on the system for some time.
>>Herding animals happen only in areas where pack hunting predators are also
>>available. That is one of the keys to understanding the dynamics of
>>wildlife. Singular stealth hunters such as mountain lions and tigers will
>>be found in areas where climate brittlenss is not an issue and where prey
>>species that are not in large herds exist. this is how it evolved. I would
>>suggest you read Liapold's Wildlife Management.
>>Decisions must be made that test out socially, economically, and
>>ecologically. Mountain lions will never pass. Pack hunters are already
>>here growing in numbers as we speak. Yes they will reduce the deer herd.
>>An elk herd would indeed provide more consistency for building such a
>>population quickly and would push the deer out of the edges. Herding
>>animals are kept moving by pack hunters. The reintroduction of the wolf in
>>Yellowstone has proven this out. Prior to this the Cottonwoods were
>>quickly going away. This happened because of the lack of pack hunters with
>>the herd of elk. The elk stayed near the streams browsing the saplings.
>>Ironically once the herd was put in motion the cottonwoods are on their
>>way back.
>>You simply can not treat anything in isolation.
>>Elk will still get some moans from the public but would generally be more
>>acceptable and would in the end create the same result. Fred Hays
>>
>>>From: "Bradley Eichelberger" <beichelberger0 at hotmail.com>
>>>To: sustainableresources at hotmail.com, jmcgraw at wvu.edu,
>>>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>>>Subject: RE: [MPWG] Science paper on ginseng
>>>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:28:22 -0500
>>>
>>>MPWG Members,
>>>
>>>I have not yet read Dr. McGraw’s publication but can not sit back and
>>>listen to Mr. Haye’s misuse and abuse of biological concepts. It is pure
>>>moot to suggest that the deer population will be held in check by natural
>>>forces within 100 years. There used to be a population check, natural
>>>predators, which were either driven or removed out of the system. Hence,
>>>one of the reasons why the deer problem exists. This is biology 101 and
>>>man has taken out a substantial amount of natural predators so man has
>>>influenced the system.
>>>
>>>It is also ridiculous to suggest that the reintroduction of elk as a
>>>competitor will alleviate the problem. Especially, since most deer
>>>births are believed to result in twins and that the deer already
>>>outnumber the elk by a long shot. Furthermore, there is a lack in
>>>predator numbers to be drawn in by elk herds. Elk have been reintroduced
>>>into other areas as a means of re-establishing a species that was locally
>>>extirpated due to hunting (Pennsylvania). But I have never heard of it
>>>being introduced to control deer populations.
>>>
>>>I realize that reintroducing predators is not going to work since
>>>predators are already subjected to persecution. I am not saying that we
>>>should hunt deer to extinction. The truth is that there is a deer
>>>overpopulation problem, that some of the suggested solutions were absurd
>>>and there could be some rather adverse effects for all kinds of plants if
>>>the deer problem is not addressed.
>>>
>>>Thank you for your time and consideration.
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>
>>>Brad Eichelberger
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: "Center for Sustainable Resources"
>>>><sustainableresources at hotmail.com>
>>>>To: jmcgraw at wvu.edu, MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>>>>Subject: RE: [MPWG] Science paper on ginseng
>>>>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:33:20 -0900
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>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