[MPWG] [APWG] Texas Invasive Plant review applies to Aquatic plants only(?)

Tue Mar 2 10:12:53 CST 2010

I don't see how laws can be passed that will address the presence of
existing invasive plants. Common sense dictates that people don't
intentionally plant weeds and the concept that "possessing" a weed is a
punishable crime strikes me as lunacy. Pass laws or regulations that would
prohibit the sale of plants in certain locations if you will, but keep in
mind that no plant is inherently invasive in all situations or locations.
California poppy is a lovely native plant in California but it is an
invasive, noxious weed elsewhere. If dandelions or Japanese stiltgrass
were declared "illegal" and blacklisted, could someone arrest me (or most
of the people in this country) or fine me if they grow in my lawn or in my
pasture even if I did not plant them? Would such a law require me to use
herbicides to eradicate the invaders? Would someone from the "plant
police" show up at my property and do it for me and then send me a bill?
Will the current "science" that declares weed killers as "safe" be reputed
in the near future as has been the case with many, many other "safe"
products such as DDT and a whole host of others? Are we so certain of our
"science" today that we will legislate, no, mandate, actions that may well
be far worse than the perceived problem we are trying to solve.
Many of the invasive plants that we are so worried about now were
purposely introduced by well intentioned "experts" at USDA and elsewhere
and supported by the scientific community of those days. Many of those
people believed, as Franklin did, that "No individual does a greater
service to society than by the introduction of a useful plant". Today's
"science" would seem to repudiate that concept but science does not label
organisms as "good" or "bad". That distinction applies to well intentioned
people who are quite certain that their "science" is foolproof and
therefore worthy of laws to enforce it.
I would propose that all the money now being spent on impossible
erradication  efforts be directed towards education. We seem to think
average Americans are so stupid that we need laws and regulations to
protect us from weeds. If people were educated as to the "virtues" or
"vices" of certain plants, most would make good decisions and we would
preserve some semblance of freedom of choice.

(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.)
>
> 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.
>
> Even the press release on the TWPD website leaves questions unanswered,
> referring to the project simply as "creating an approved plant list".
>
> Well, now that sounds pretty benign.  But what does that mean?   What
> happens if you have a plant that's not approved?
>
> 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:
>  http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/81streports/tpwd/issue1.pdf
>
> 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.
>
> I find this report disturbing for a number of reasons.
>
> 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.
>
> The failure of a "black list" to solve all problems does not justify a
> "white list."
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 4)  On the final page of the report, under "Modifications", is the
> statement
> *"Give  TPWD regulatory authority over invasive terrestrial species."*
> So,
> if this is just about aquatics, apparently, it's just because they're
> taking
> one step at a time.
>
> 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.
>
>
> So what?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> So the United States does not respect the right of other countries to
> disallow importation of genetically engineered crops out of concern for
> protecting* their* 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?
>
> 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)!
>
> Here is a list of plants, genetically engineered, that have been
> completely
> deregulated (or, as indicated, such "nonregulated" status is pending):
>
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html
>
> 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".
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Nature is not concerned with maintaining the economic status quo.  That's
> not her imperative; she has a larger and more important agenda.
>
> ALTERNATIVES
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Black list, white list.   Help!  Can' we really do no better than this?
>
> best regards,
>
> Gena
>
>
>
> On 1 March 2010 14:04, John Barr <jmbarr at academicplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>   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*.  The
>> identified problem is not invasives per se, but plants that threaten the
>> *
>> alien* Bass fishery. (Ironic smile intended).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:29 PM, Robert Layton Beyfuss wrote:
>>
>>  How nice to see that the government will now decide what plants the
>> citizens may or may not possess. Thanks Big Brother.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.statesman.com/sports/outdoors/department-to-begin-invasive-plant-program-261616.html
>>
>>
>> Department to begin invasive plant program
>>
>> By Mike Leggett
>>
>> AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
>>
>> Published: 7:22 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 20, 2010
>>
>>
>> The Texas Legislature issued orders last session for the Texas Parks and
>>
>> Wildlife Department to begin compiling a comprehensive list of invasive
>>
>> and non-native plants and to publish a "white list" of plants that would
>>
>> be legal to possess, grow or sell in Texas. Any plant not on the list
>>
>> would be considered noxious and illegal.
>>
>>
>> See the link above for the full article text.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
>>
>> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>>
>>
>> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>>
>>
>> Disclaimer
>>
>> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
>>
>> opinion of the individual posting the message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
>> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>>
>> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>>
>> Disclaimer
>> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
>> opinion of the individual posting the message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
>> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>>
>> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>>
>> Disclaimer
>> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
>> opinion of the individual posting the message.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCA's Medicinal Plant Working Group 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.