[MPWG] Evaluating the Invasive Potential of Imported Plants

[Michael Laurie]

"The concept of plants in themselves being capable of being "invasive"
Is silly. It is attributing human qualities (implying malice in this
case) to unthinking organisms. Plants live, grow, reproduce (some are very
efficient at this) and die."
 
Calling a plant invasive is not necessarily silly it is just an attempt to
clarify its potential to be aggressive in taking over a plot of land.
It is not necessarily an attempt to give the plants human qualities,
it is just an effort to distinguish them from other plants that are less
likely to spread rapidly. 
 
"New or different plants do not displace established existing plants in
healthy, undisturbed  ecosystems. Plants do not
Appear anywhere due to "spontaneous generation". They are brought in by
humans or animals."  
 
I agree.  The problem is that the majority of our inhabitatd land is
unhealthy and disturbed to some degree.  
So why add insult to injury by encouraging the planting of invasive plants
when adding natives and non-invasives 
could do a better job of restoring the land to a more healthy state and
providing other benefits we want. 
 
"I am offended at the concept that "exotic" plants are somehow inferior
To "native" plants. Especially since 90% of my diet and that of most
of us is derived from"exotic" plants. Demonizing "exotic" plants as
"invasive
exotic" is inherently offensive .  Which term is less offensive to you
"Invasive exotic" or "opportunistic colonizer"?"
 
I think you are starting to unnecessarily muddy the discussion here.
Most people that I know who are working to control "invasive" plants, 
fully admit that most of our food plants and many of the ornamentals and
medicinal herbs that we all grow are introduced.
None of these people, that I am aware of, complain about a plant just
because it is introduced.
It is the invasives that concern them.
If someone moves into the neighborhood where I live and they make an attempt
to live in an ecologically sensitive manner and they get to know the
neighbors, I am pleased.
If someone else moves in and tears down 3 nice old homes, destroys a few
acres of native plants and builds a 30,000 square foot home and puts in two
acres of lawn, I am not pleased.
What is the difference.
The first person tries to minimize their impact and be sensitive to the
existing ecology of the place.  
No question they have an impact, but it is a lighter impact.
The second person destroys an excessive amount of the neighborhood and kills
off some attractive native plants and maybe drives out some native people.
 
"What I find even more troubling is the knee jerk reaction to their
presence. Lets just kill all the bad plants we don't like anymore and
everything will be fine. First we gather all their names up and put
them on a list. Target these for extermination. Next we will make up more
lists of plants that "might" be "invasive" in the future and ban them too.
Here
in NY State we already have county executives issuing "executive decrees"
banning the use of any but "native" species in any future plantings on
county property. How dare they do this? Yet, this is a logical
extension of the current polices we are formulating. Why should we be denied
daffodils, daylillies, tulips or apple trees or Kentucky bluegrass (another
exotic import) because someone has decided that they are evil?"
 
It is usually not a matter of someone deciding they are evil.
It is not just a matter of calling plants bad.
It is a matter, most likely, of a number of people recognizing that some
plants are a threat to fragile native plants
or a threat to other plants and habitats or a threat to existing economies.

I don't know the details for your area but that is how it occurs here in
Washington State.
In Washington State and King County there are different levels that plants
are rated at on the "Noxious" weed list based on how big of a threat they
are.
I do agree with you that banning everything but native species is an
unnecessary extreme measure.
I can't imagine that approach catching on in too many areas in light of the
money and power in the industries that make money from non-native plants.
 
I guess part of it comes down to personal taste.
I like a lot of the native plants in my area.
I also like a lot of the introduced plants and I grow many introduced
plants.
I would hate to see where I live, Vashon Island, get further engulfed by the
English Ivy which is weakening and eventually killing many native trees and
shrubs.
I would much rather see a forest with a wide diversity of trees, shrubs, and
low growing annuals and perennials than a forest that is 70% English Ivy
which is what we have in some areas.
We have that problem partly due to bad logging practices in the past and
partly due to too many people planting English Ivy and English Ivy being
well adapted to live here.
We can't unmake the past but we have choices and options now and in the
future.
I am now in the process of removing a lot of the English Ivy from my land
and other areas 
and replacing it with a wide range of the plants that most likely used to be
in those spots.
This is also helping to bring back more of the native birds, mammals, and
fish.
One of the things that I like most when I travel 
is finding the cultural, historical, and ecological elements of what make
that place unique and what help define that place.
I dislike it when Wal Marts, fast food restaurants, and other chain stores
move in and make one place look like another.
I feel the same way about certain plants moving in and making one ecosystem
look like another and possibly making that system less stable and less
resilent.
 
For now, one final thought.
To me a lot of this environmental and sustainability stuff comes down to the
choices we have available to meet our needs and interests.
If you can choose a compact fluorescent lamp (CPL) instead of an
incandescent lamp 
and the CPL will save many dollars more than its extra purchase price thru
energy savings, help reduce climate change, and much more, 
why not do it, it is a better alternative in many ways.
In the rare case where you need a special quality of light maybe only an
incandescent or quartz halogen lamp will do.
In that special quality of light situation the CPL choice does not meet your
need.
 
Same with plants, if you can get food, medicine, erosion control, ornamental
beauty, ecological restoration, and other benefits from natives and
"non-invasive" introduced plants, why not choose them and avoid the possible
problems from invasives?  
Why choose a likely "invasive" plant when there are so many other good
options out there?
Are invasive plants growing on strip mined land better than having no plants
on that strip mined land and allowing for massive erosion? YES THE INVASIVES
ARE BETTER THAN NO PLANTS IN THAT CASE. 
 
Will we ever eliminate "invasives"? NO
Are some expenditures of limited money and human labor in removing invasives
better spent on something else? YES
Is a good solution made bad because it is not perfect? NO
But why unnecessarily make the problem worse from choosing invasives at the
times when other options exist and will work?
 
Michael Laurie
Vashon, WA 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20070304/3beaa7ee/attachment.html>