[MPWG] eat the weeds

[Center for Sustainable Resources]

I suspect the only way you might see the light would be in a long 
discussion.
The same old simplistic notions long established by the system you claim 
such contempt for is what fogs you reasoning. I will point out a few things.
Weeds don't invade they occupy openings left by poor management (Land 
Management).
You can't manage plants anymore than you can manage starrs.
Most biodiversity is in the soil. It has been proven that even on grass land 
that has heavy livestock or on forest land that has heavy trees standing 
more living matter by weight exist in the top eight inches of soil than all 
life above ground. The biodiversity in the soil is so great and so complex 
that it is much easier to just blame a plant you don't want than to address 
the root cause of the problem.
Linear sciens is for applying parts to machines. Holistic science is for 
working with ecosystem processes. You apply parts to a car. You play a 
violin.
I don't have a problem with weeds and don't anticipate one.
Provate land onership and the conservation by the people on the land is the 
only way you are able to sit down and eat each day. No, you can't tell me 
what I can grow and you never will, not in this country and not in this 
life.
The rationale you present is no different than that which succeed in germany 
in the 1930s as one responder pointed out. You are welcome to kick around 
weeds as much as you want but don't try to impose that on people actually 
addressing problems.
By addressing the root cause of any biological problem one can truly make a 
difference. Blaming weeds does nothing but waste time and waste resources. 
Our problems are much more serious than that and you trivialize what is 
truly wrong through no fault of your own. I am sure you have had good 
teachers and many good myths to adhere too.
People through the ceturies have made decisions in one way only and what you 
adhere to is no different. We have experienced in the past 100 years two 
thirds of the planet becoming desert due to this decision making process. 
Read Allan Savory's book "Holistic Management" if you want to see how the 
planet will be saved if it is to be saved. Fred Hays



>From: "Virgil Dupuis" <Virgil_Dupuis at skc.edu>
>To: "Center for Sustainable Resources" <sustainableresources at hotmail.com>
>CC: pankajoudhia at yahoo.com, MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>Subject: Re: [MPWG] eat the weeds
>Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:45:41 -0700
>
>The past discussion ranging from “eat the weeds”, to “right to life for
>all plants”, and the “sanctity of private land cannot be violated” appear
>to be geared at the same old problem with noxious weeds.  I have heard
>many excuses for people and society in general not taking responsibility
>for noxious weeds.  Not my problem, nature abhors a vacuum, you can’t tell
>me what to do on my land, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder are all
>used to defend a no action alternative when it comes to managing weeds.
>Noxious weeds are proven to be serious costly invaders, whereas invasive
>plants are less damaging and often times used.  Ecologically, noxious
>weeds are not merely nature’s band-aid on man’s misguided intrusions.
>Research is finding that some plants are capable of replacing entire
>niches of native plants due to superior competitive abilities (noxious
>weeds replacing shrubs in grassland sites, or making entirely new niches
>like aquatic invaders can) either through alleopathy or pirating fungi and
>other resources away from natives.  Surely poor management helped
>establish these plants, many which were intentionally introduced due to
>their use in Europe (honey production, ornamental, keeping bad spirits
>away, dyes).  When entire plant biomes and associated energy cycles are
>changed and degraded entirely from the natural system by noxious weeds, it
>is everyone’s problem.  Private land ownership in this country is based on
>British common property law (invasive notion in itself), on a bundle of
>rights and responsibilities, subject to the laws of the sovereign.  The
>sovereign represents society as a whole.  So yes, someone can regulate
>what you grow on your property, because it has been shown that some plants
>can cause millions of dollars of damage to neighboring land, hence Noxious
>Weed Law.  These laws are largely ineffective in actual control, but can
>be effective in helping groups work towards managing weeds, and leveraging
>individuals not interested in controlling weeds on their property.
>Finally, an argument that all plants have some good use is probably
>correct, but don’t use that as an excuse not to be responsible to nature
>and your neighbors.  Personally I am not worried about finding enough
>knapweed to use as a blood tonic, toadflax to use as dye, or St. Johnswort
>to chase the ghosts or depression away, there are lots of those plants.
>The plants in danger are the natives that create biodiversity, economic
>opportunity, and ecosystem stability.  Invasive plants do not do any of
>those things.  So, please do eat the dandelions and make wine too.
>virgil
>
>
>