[PCA] TV: David Mizejewski on the Today Show

[Dan and Sarah Segal]

Steve,

Thanks for the offer of noxious weeds but I will decline.  Did I say that I like bad weeds and want them to proliferate?  I think you missed my point, or else you were just being frosty.

Of course no ecologist or naturalist would seriously suggest that recently adventive weeds ought to be considered natives because they have been here 50 years and have found a niche.  Maybe that was your point?  That I was downplaying the distinction between native and non-native species?  The point I was making, which you repeat nicely with examples, is that native plants are plants that have evolved here. Weeds, invasive exotics, non-natives, bastards, illegal aliens or Europeans, whatever you want to call them--these are the ones that did not evolve here.  In fact, pretty much all your examples illustrate my point perfectly--those species cause ecological problems because they did not evolve here.  If one wants to put emphasis on who brought them here and when, fine, we all did, but the reason it's a problem ecologically is because those plants didn't evolve here.  I wouldn't say that's overly philosophical.  It's about as simple as it gets, which is why I offer it as a definition of "native plant".   

Marshes drowning with sea level rise (Louisiana; the Chesapeake), or being eaten alive by non-native species will eventually rebound naturally, or be restored if possible, or be replaced by marshes at the proper elevation in a different place.  Maybe that's what you meant by doing triage.  But how static do you think things are, anyway?  Our most damaging actions are fleeting, as are our attempts to freeze a favorite plant community in time by preserving it.  I prefer to see us as agents of the universe rather than something deadened and apart from the universe.  The only way we can have no impact is to not be here.  Given the choice, I will take a positive, if philosophical, approach to nature any day.  It doesn't mean I always like what I see out there, or that I have given up and gladly accept what's happening.  Yet one can still be positive.  

I lived and worked in California for almost 10 years and to suggest that "most" of the breathtaking natural areas there (or in the west in general) are under assault by bad plants is exaggeration .  Some places are, but "most" are not.  Some habitats are more vulnerable than others, sure.  Same here in the East.  Despite what some might say about this part of the country, there are still significant natural areas, even while some habitats are disproportionately impacted.  Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder, a matter of outlook, optimism vs. pessimism, I don't know.  One can look at the Adirondacks and mope about acid rain, or one can see 6,000,000 acres of some of the most beautiful land in the world.  Again, it doesn't mean I don't try to affect change.  Natural areas dominated by Phragmites (in the east), star thistle (in the west), or any other noxious weed anywhere else, exist and are heartbreaking, I agree.  But our actions today (aggressive logging, aggressive development, etc.) are far more effective in altering biotic communities and their functions than the fact that a few aggressive weeds were brought here some time ago. Learning to coexist with a healthy natural world is the greatest puzzle we face.   Hope we learn how before much longer because it is painful to watch, and I may be wrong--we may be able to destroy the world, literally, with our actions--but I doubt it.

What a boorish suggestion, that it's a waste of time to think philosophically about these issues!  As if anyone who bothers to philosophise, or contemplate a bit, can't possibly have time to do anything worthwhile!  By day, I grow 2.5 million native plants a year for ecological restoration practitioners in the eastern US--about 95% from seed we collect regionally and locally.  Not to mention many hours a year promoting native plants, ecological restoration, environmental education for kids and adults, etc.  So while I am not a paid professional ecologist (or philosopher!), I don't think my head is in the sand on these issues.  You can belittle all you want the cerebral and spiritual threads that make ecology a whole discipline and a sacred pursuit.  But without those threads, ecology is simply an exercise in statistics.  No wonder you don't seem to be enjoying it.


Regards,

Dan Segal

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20041002/1f2890c4/attachment.html>