<head><style>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</style></head><body id="compText">While it is my hope that this legislation is indeed well intended, Gena articulates some very timely and thought provoking points here that necessarily go beyond the scope of this bill. As far as "Big Brother" is concerned I would tend to say that Texas has perhaps one of the most "neo-conservative" legislatures in the country which is an important distinction to ponder if one is into using such labels.<br><br>Robin<br><br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 0px;">-----Original Message-----
<br>From: Gena Fleming <genafleming@gmail.com>
<br>Sent: Mar 1, 2010 7:43 PM
<br>To: APWG@lists.plantconservation.org, MPWG@lists.plantconservation.org
<br>Subject: Re: [MPWG] [APWG] Texas Invasive Plant review applies to Aquatic plants only(?)
<br><br><div>(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.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Even the press release on the TWPD website leaves questions unanswered, referring to the project simply as "creating an approved plant list". </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Well, now that sounds pretty benign. But what does that mean? What happens if you have a plant that's not approved?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:</div>
<div> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/81streports/tpwd/issue1.pdf">http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/81streports/tpwd/issue1.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I find this report disturbing for a number of reasons.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The failure of a "black list" to solve all problems does not justify a "white list."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>4) On the final page of the report, under "Modifications", is the statement <strong>"Give TPWD regulatory authority over invasive terrestrial species."</strong> So, if this is just about aquatics, apparently, it's just because they're taking one step at a time.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So what? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So the United States does not respect the right of other countries to disallow importation of genetically engineered crops out of concern for protecting<em> their</em> 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?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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)!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here is a list of plants, genetically engineered, that have been completely deregulated (or, as indicated, such "nonregulated" status is pending):</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a target="_blank" href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html">http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>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".</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nature is not concerned with maintaining the economic status quo. That's not her imperative; she has a larger and more important agenda. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ALTERNATIVES</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Black list, white list. Help! Can' we really do no better than this? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>best regards,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Gena</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 1 March 2010 14:04, John Barr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jmbarr@academicplanet.com" target="_blank">jmbarr@academicplanet.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<div>
<div>
<div>What is not made clear in the headline, nor in the body of the story is that TPWD is currently limiting its review to <font size="3"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><b><i>aquatic plants</i></b></span></font>. The identified problem is not invasives per se, but plants that threaten the <font size="3"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><b><i>alien</i></b></span></font> Bass fishery. (Ironic smile intended).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>John</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:29 PM, Robert Layton Beyfuss wrote:</div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>How nice to see that the government will now decide what plants the<br>citizens may or may not possess. Thanks Big Brother.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.statesman.com/sports/outdoors/department-to-begin-invasive-plant-program-261616.html" target="_blank">http://www.statesman.com/sports/outdoors/department-to-begin-invasive-plant-program-261616.html</a><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Department to begin invasive plant program<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">By Mike Leggett<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Published: 7:22 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 20, 2010<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">The Texas Legislature issued orders last session for the Texas Parks and<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Wildlife Department to begin compiling a comprehensive list of invasive<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">and non-native plants and to publish a "white list" of plants that would<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">be legal to possess, grow or sell in Texas. Any plant not on the list<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">would be considered noxious and illegal.<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">See the link above for the full article text.<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:APWG@lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">APWG@lists.plantconservation.org</a><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Disclaimer<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">opinion of the individual posting the message.<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list<br><a href="mailto:APWG@lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">APWG@lists.plantconservation.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</a><br><br>Disclaimer<br>
Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting the message.<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:APWG@lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">APWG@lists.plantconservation.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</a><br>
<br>Disclaimer<br>Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting the message.<br></blockquote></div><br>
</genafleming@gmail.com></blockquote></body><pre>
Robin Alton Suggs
MoonBranch Botanicals
5294 Yellow Creek Road
Robbinsville, North Carolina 28771
USA
Telephone: 828.479.2788
moonbranch@earthlink.net
www.moonbranch.com
Member:
Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project; Farm Partner
Green Products Alliance
North Carolina Consortium on Natural Medicines
North Carolina Goodness Grows/NCDA&CS
North Carolina Natural Products Association
Southwestern North Carolina RC&D Council
United Plant Savers
"Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
</pre>