[PCA] Human sacrifice and ecosystem function
James Trager
James.Trager at mobot.org
Thu Sep 6 17:20:06 CDT 2012
Thanks Tony, for effectively giving us a definition of an invasive species. The situation you describe is one of a species that originated elsewhere colonizing a portion of a geographic region
new to it, to an extent that local native plant communities are diminished in function, diversity, and one could argue, beauty. I believe native species can be invasive, too, as has happened with Juniperus virginiana taking over xeric grasslands east of the 100th meridian, mesquite in southwestern grasslands, sugar maple in oak-hickory woodlands, etc., etc., etc. This doesn't really address the original Phragmites question, but at least settles the issue that has diverted the conversation from that question.
James C. Trager, Ph. D.
Restoration Biologist
Shaw Nature Reserve
Gray Summit MO
-----Original Message-----
From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org on behalf of Addsum-Tony Frates
Sent: Thu 9/6/2012 10:51 AM
To: native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [PCA] Human sacrifice and ecosystem function
Management practices are no doubt part of the issue (and not just the
control of water - excessive and inappropriate grazing in the West as
been as much of a destructive factor as any).
But, we aren't going to eat our way out of Cheatgrass, Euphorbia
myrsinites, Linaria dalmatica nor Russian Olive or Tamarisk problems.
And it isn't scientists that made a monster out of Tamarisk - if we
want to label anyone as monsters (which is way over the top), it would
be those who brought these things here in the first place (as a result
of inadvertence, imcompetence, sheer arrogance and a general lack of
foresight and a complete lack of ecological understanding). The
"war" on invasives is indeed a fight with this past legacy of
stupidity on the part of primarily European immigrants. The plants
are of course not good or bad but we use those labels sometimes to
denote what should occur naturally in an ecosystem and what should
not, and in according to what Darwin meant by survival of the fittest
(and not as commonly construed by the public). Simply accepting the
status quo and doing nothing is unacceptable.
The environmental ethics and awareness that occurred in the 1970's was
critical. We are just up against a huge, complex problem. And while
we may struggle with definitions (just as we struggle to define many
other words in the constitution, let's say, that have nothing to do
with biology), the fact that we continue to try to do so is important,
and U.S. legislation and executive orders have been based on science
and while they could all stand to be improved, I would not want to be
without them either. We do have invasive species. These are species
that are not LOCALLY native to an area in question, and that did not
EVOLVE naturally in that area typically but rather were abruptly
simply dumped there (or spread from areas where they were suddenly
dumped).
I have also very recently personally firsthand seen the tremendous
positive impact that a Russian Olive removal had on a local wetlands
area. Dozens of trees were removed and that removal no doubt caused
impact on the grounds (and yes there are still ongoing weed problems).
But wetlands can be very resilient if they have plenty of sunshine
and enough water. Like Tamarisk, Russian Olive ultimately and if
unchecked turns into dense forests and chokes out the light leading to
the extirpation of native species within a given place which I have
also witnessed firsthand. In less than an eight month period
following an off-season removal of the
noxious-alien-exotic-plants-out-of-place-and-therefore-bad Russian
Olive, the wetlands in question has been literally reborn. The
efforts were well worth it and fully appropriate.
So the key ingredient to the recipe here was to add sunshine. That
could ONLY be accomplished by removing the Russian Olive, a tree that
incredibly is still commonly used for plantings sometimes even in very
misguided so-called revegetation projects.
And of course also, the exploding and unsustainable human population
growth component can never be forgotten or dismissed (about which our
species particularly in the 1970's was warned but has continued to
largely ignore), and many of our endangered and threatened plant and
animal species will remain under threat until human populations
stabilize, and some may therefore never be unable to "recover" or at
least be secure until that occurs, and for some it will be too late.
A stable, sustainable human population is an essential recipe for the
future and ultimately for the controlling invasive species.
Tony Frates
Quoting Joe Franke <sapogordoeco at comcast.net>:
> Gena,
>
> Very well stated.
>
> I tried to bring about a little of that contextual shift that you mention by
> writing ³The Invasive Species Cookbook², which will be in its second edition
> within the year. At the risk of this sounding like and advert for the book,
> I¹d welcome any new recipes that people would like to contribute. The book
> was met with a certain amount of derision when reviewed in Ecology and
> Ecological Restoration, mostly because there was a widespread
> misunderstanding of the books¹s purpose by the reviewers in that they
> thought that I was advocating human consumption as a means of species
> control. In reality the central purpose of the book is to help people to
> think a bit differently about invasives, both plant and animal.
> Parenthetically, it was suggested several times by readers of the first
> edition of the book that I include recipes for humans, our species being the
> most ³invasive² and destructive of the world¹s biota, but I¹ve elected not
> to for several reasons, commercial and ethical. I¹m not quite ready for that
> broad a contextual change!
>
> Even if such a contextual shift isn¹t immediately possible, I think that the
> discussion about how we might get there is one worthy of discussion now. How
> we view the world¹s biota, to what degree we value fully functioning
> ecosystems and how much we¹re willing to sacrifice in order to get them to
> get to the point where we have sufficient tools at our disposal to really
> bring them back, rather than just treating symptoms of the disease (e.g.
> Tamarisk and Phragmites) are things that we should be talking about, even
> while we chop and poison with fingers crossed in hope that we¹re doing some
> good...which is sometimes not the case. I¹ve seen plenty around here that
> would indicate that we¹re actually doing more damage than good. Some
> invasive plants seem to thrive on abuse, take Russian olive for example.
>
> How to induce the necessary cultural change in thinking that will allow for
> more water in the river...that¹s the rub. Environmental education as it has
> existed since the O70s is largely a failure because it has done little to
> change ³nature¹s² place in the values hierarchy. But without this essential
> set of changes we as a species are doomed, and the sneaking suspicion that
> what we¹re doing in restoration work is largely a proverbial finger in the
> dike.
>
> JF
>
>
> On 9/5/12 8:20 PM, "Gena Fleming" <genafleming at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe, I really think the point you are bringing up is essential. An academic
>> discussion may be where we start; at least the topic is being broached.
>> Focussing on invasive plants instead of the "ecological perturbations" is
>> exactly what's allowing these ecological perturbations to continue.
>>
>> The problems we are facing are going to require an essential shift of
>> context. This need for contextual shifting (or perhaps I should say for a
>> conceptual shift towards contextual thinking) is not unique to
>> invasive plant
>> discussions; it applies to just about every problem we are facing right
>> now ---- including education, medicine, economics, etc. Imagine every
>> discipline mirroring the same conceptual flaw in a hologram.
>>
>> I think that's why it's so hard to change our thinking. Letting go of the
>> invasive plant focus doesn't make sense within the existing socioeconomic
>> context. But if we lived in a society where we were eating
>> invasive plants,
>> making medicine out of invasive plants, making paper out of invasive plants,
>> and using invasive plants for bioremediation, well pretty soon the situation
>> might resolve itself.
>> In fact, maybe that's why they are invasive ---- they're an underutilized
>> resource.
>>
>> We keep trying to tweek things with efforts to mitigate the symptoms we are
>> creating, only to allow us to continue pursuing business as usual.
>> I realize
>> we can't change the game overnight, but at least we can start having these
>> conversations.
>>
>> Anyway, I appreciate your contribution. Also, If you are the author of the
>> "Invasive Species Cookbook," will you please tell me where I can get a copy?
>>
>> Gena Fleming
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 September 2012 20:40, Joe Franke <sapogordoeco at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Well, so far it¹s only an academic discussion. When you point out these
>>> problems to funders of restoration projects, they don¹t want to hear about
>>> it. It¹s a little like American politics in that it¹s easier to ³other² a
>>> politician than to look at the social conditions that brought them to power
>>> and do something about the ³root² problems.
>>>
>>> It¹s been horrifying to see how much money has been wasted here on the
>>> unsuccessful attempted ³control² of tamarisk, Russian olive and
>>> Siberian elm
>>> in cottonwood Bosque along the Rio Grande.
>>>
>>> I would recommend that people look at some of Mathew Chew¹s work,
>>> including:
>>> Chew, M.K. 2009. The Monstering of Tamarisk: How scientists made a
>>> plant into
>>> a problem. Journal of the History of Biology 42:231-266
>>>
>>> He has some more technical articles out as well that I have yet to
>>> read, but
>>> will do so shortly. I think that there is a lot to discuss here,
>>> and I¹d be
>>> very interested to hear what other people have to say about the
>>> general topic
>>> of focusing on specific invasive species and not the ecological
>>> perturbations
>>> that allow them to dominate entire ecosystems.
>>>
>>> Joe Franke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/5/12 7:14 PM, "Gena Fleming" <genafleming at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think you are having the most relevant discussion out West.
>>>> It's time to
>>>> start focussing on the real problem.
>>>>
>>>> On 5 September 2012 15:18, Joe Franke <sapogordoeco at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> There is a perhaps different but related discussion that¹s going on out
>>>>> here in the West concerning Tamarisk. To many of us attempting to do
>>>>> restoration work we¹ve realized that the spread and extreme
>>>>> ³weediness² of
>>>>> plant is more of a symptom of poor water management than an evil unto
>>>>> itself, and becomes a convenient shill that distracts (mostly
>>>>> federal) land
>>>>> managers from the real problem: not enough water on the land,
>>>>> and disrupted
>>>>> flood cycles. We can blame tamarisk all we want, but the real
>>>>> problem lies
>>>>> in our species¹ wasteful use and mismanagement of the water resource.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/4/12 7:35 PM, "Robert Layton Beyfuss" <rlb14 at cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks to all who have responded and elaborated on my original query. I
>>>>>> think the general consensus is that native plants cannot be ³officially²
>>>>>> invasive but they surely can be problematic! I have a colleague
>>>>>> at Cornell
>>>>>> who refers to native weeds that behave like invasives as ³interfering²
>>>>>> vegetation. No one has ever satisfactorily defined ³exotic² in
>>>>>> my opinion
>>>>>> and I consider Clinton¹s executive order as a political gaffe that has
>>>>>> mostly served to make ecologists fight over semantics as the exchanges
>>>>>> here seem to verify. I am not so sure how much science has
>>>>>> advanced due to
>>>>>> executive orders. It has also generated a backlash that causes
>>>>>> people to
>>>>>> hate plants from Europe or Asia in general and to create black lists and
>>>>>> white lists of plants which I find very disturbing. Vastly different
>>>>>> ecosystems exist even within a given state or region. I consider it
>>>>>> impossible to say that a plant which is native to Canada is exotic
>>>>>> anywhere in n North America but it surely does not exist in
>>>>>> many American
>>>>>> ecosystems.. So where does one draw the border line? Black
>>>>>> locust, as one
>>>>>> poster mentioned is a classic example of a plant that grew
>>>>>> satisfactorily
>>>>>> in one particular place, but now seems to be a problem in other
>>>>>> places not
>>>>>> very far away. Some states consider it as exotic. Plants don¹t recognize
>>>>>> borders and neither should we in trying to tell ³good² plants from ³bad²
>>>>>> plants based on their lack of green cards. Ecosystems are highly dynamic
>>>>>> as succession creates profound changes in species composition.
>>>>>> Almost all
>>>>>> plants have their merits and demerits in ecosystems and many
>>>>>> exotic plants
>>>>>> have served us very well indeed. Poison ivy may provide food
>>>>>> for 60 or 70
>>>>>> bird species but so do Autumn olive and multiflora rose without being
>>>>>> toxic to touch. Introduced species are now hybridizing with related
>>>>>> native ones as is the case with Phragmites and probably others. How will
>>>>>> we classify their offspring? If they originate in the US, are they not
>>>>>> native? If the hybrids become even more invasive does that fact become
>>>>>> moot because they originated here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Claudia Thompson-Deahl [mailto:CLAUDIA at reston.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:34 PM
>>>>>> To: Marc Imlay; Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov; Robert Layton Beyfuss
>>>>>> Cc: native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org;
>>>>>> apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; 'Katy Cummings'
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [APWG] [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would be surprised if Poison Ivy is on the National Park
>>>>>> Service Exotic
>>>>>> Plant Management Teams list as I have heard about 70 species of
>>>>>> birds eat
>>>>>> the berries and it is a native.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claudia Thompson-Deahl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Environmental Resource Manager
>>>>>> ISA Certified Arborist # MA-5203A
>>>>>> 12250 Sunset Hills Road
>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>> 703.435.6547 <tel:703.435.6547> <tel:703.435.6547 <tel:703.435.6547> >
>>>>>> claudia at reston.org <mailto:claudia at reston.org>
>>>>>> Reston Association Employees Make the Difference: Caring for, Serving &
>>>>>> Enhancing the Reston Community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RA Vision: Leading the model community where all can live,
>>>>>> work, play, and
>>>>>> get involved.
>>>>>> RA Mission: To preserve and enhance the Reston Community through
>>>>>> outstanding leadership, service, and stewardship of our resources.
>>>>>> RA Core Values: Service~Collaboration~Stewardship~ Innovation~Leadership
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain
>>>>>> privileged and confidential information from the Reston
>>>>>> Association. This
>>>>>> information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient.
>>>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
>>>>>> [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Marc Imlay
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:02 AM
>>>>>> To: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov; 'Robert Layton Beyfuss'
>>>>>> Cc: native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org;
>>>>>> apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; 'Katy Cummings'
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [APWG] [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I show my volunteers how Poison ivy is dominant in eary succession
>>>>>> habitats after an unnatural disturbance but becomes a minor species in
>>>>>> fully recovered woodlands. The same for sweetgum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marc Imlay, PhD,
>>>>>> Conservation biologist, Park Ranger Office
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (301) 442-5657 <tel:%28301%29%20442-5657> <tel:%28301%29%20442-5657>
>>>>>> cell
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ialm at erols.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Natural and Historical Resources Division
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.pgparks.com <http://www.pgparks.com/> <http://www.pgparks.com/>
>>>>>> <http://www.pgparks.com/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
>>>>>> [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 10:25 AM
>>>>>> To: Robert Layton Beyfuss
>>>>>> Cc: native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org;
>>>>>> apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; Katy Cummings
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [APWG] [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers, Bob!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My two cents:
>>>>>> * A native can most definitely be an invasive. Teal and Mark's comments
>>>>>> elucidate that issue well.
>>>>>> * I'm not sure what list you might be referring to, but from what I
>>>>>> understand of the Federal Noxious Weed list, I believe that plants that
>>>>>> are either naturalized or have completely overrun the US will not end up
>>>>>> on that list. I believe that list tends to include species that
>>>>>> are in the
>>>>>> earlier stages of invasion where prevention of further influxes
>>>>>> can still
>>>>>> make a difference for slowing the spread. I also doubt it would
>>>>>> be on any
>>>>>> state list - those often tend to be geared to non-natives and ornamental
>>>>>> plants - of which poison ivy is neither.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems like poison ivy falls into a strange no-man's land -
>>>>>> as a native,
>>>>>> it doesn't seem to fit on the PCA ALien Plant WOrking Group listserve -
>>>>>> yet the expertise on that list may be more appropriate (versus this
>>>>>> general native plant listserve) because they are the folks with specific
>>>>>> insight on invasive species biology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if any of the National Park Service Exotic Plant
>>>>>> Management Teams
>>>>>> have identified it as among their top ten target taxa in any of their
>>>>>> regions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Patricia
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
>>>>>> Botanist, Division of Scientific Authority-US Fish & Wildlife
>>>>>> Service-International Affairs
>>>>>> Chair, Medicinal Plant Working Group-Plant Conservation Alliance
>>>>>> 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 110
>>>>>> Arlington, VA 22203
>>>>>> 703-358-1708 x1753 <tel:703-358-1708%20x1753>
>>>>>> <tel:703-358-1708%20x1753>
>>>>>> FAX: 703-358-2276 <tel:703-358-2276> <tel:703-358-2276
>>>>>> <tel:703-358-2276>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Promoting sustainable use and conservation of our native
>>>>>> medicinal plants.
>>>>>> <www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal <http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>
>>>>>> <http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>
>>>>>> <http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Follow International Affairs
>>>>>>> > on Twitter http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl
>>>>>>> > on Facebook
>>>>>> <http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl>
>>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs
>>>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs>
>>>>>> Robert Layton Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu>
>>>>>> Sent by: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org 08/27/2012
>>>>>> 09:45 AM
>>>>>> To Katy Cummings <katy.e.cummings at gmail.com>,
>>>>>> "native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org"
>>>>>> <native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org>
>>>>>> cc
>>>>>> Subject Re: [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>> I am a bit confused and hope you can enlighten me. I thought that the
>>>>>> basic definition of an invasive plant was that it had to be
>>>>>> exotic. There
>>>>>> are many native plants that create almost solid monocultures such as
>>>>>> common goldenrod yet can it be ³undesirable² at any density? .
>>>>>> Poison ivy
>>>>>> can overrun entire areas but I have never seen it listed as invasive.
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
>>>>>> [mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Katy Cummings
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 9:28 PM
>>>>>> To: native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
>>>>>> Subject: [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fellow Conservationists-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I work for The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Door County, WI. My main
>>>>>> project this summer has been mapping exotic and native stands of
>>>>>> Phragmites (Phragmites australis and Phragmites australis americanus)
>>>>>> throughout TNC properties in Door County. I have some questions and
>>>>>> experiences to share with you as our organization tries to learn more
>>>>>> about the native/exotic Phragmites issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We all know what havoc the exotic Phragmites subspecies can wreak on an
>>>>>> ecosystem, but do we know anything about the native subspecies?
>>>>>> Is there
>>>>>> any research out there showing that the native Phragmites can behave as
>>>>>> aggressively as the exotic? In Door County, the native usually grows in
>>>>>> scattered to moderate densities along with other wetland plants, with a
>>>>>> few patches showing denser concentrations. There are a few areas where
>>>>>> the native has reached undesirable ³dense² concentrations, but as of yet
>>>>>> we don¹t know why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What other plants are associated with the native Phragmites?
>>>>>> TNC will be
>>>>>> setting up monitoring plots soon on some of our native patches, and when
>>>>>> we get that data I¹ll send it to any interested people from this list.
>>>>>> The only list I¹ve been able to find is from a chapter by
>>>>>> Laura Meyerson
>>>>>> et al. in ³Invasions in North American Salt Marshes² entitled
>>>>>> ³Phragmites
>>>>>> australis in Eastern North America: A Historical and Ecological
>>>>>> Perspective². Does anyone know of other lists from different regions of
>>>>>> the U.S.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there any patterns to where native Phragmites is found? During my
>>>>>> mapping of the plant in Door County, I¹ve generally found native
>>>>>> Phragmites set back from the edge of waterways and growing in
>>>>>> more marshy
>>>>>> areas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What have you all seen as far as size of patches, number of patches,
>>>>>> location, rate of spread, etc. of the native Phragmites in your area?
>>>>>> Most of the wetlands in Door County are fed by alkaline ground water
>>>>>> discharge as a result of movement through the underlying dolomitic
>>>>>> bedrock. I assume that because of these alkaline conditions we have a
>>>>>> higher population of native Phragmites than perhaps other regions of the
>>>>>> Midwest. Is this true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To help answer these questions, The Nature Conservancy¹s Door Peninsula
>>>>>> office has temporarily halted eradication measures of native lineages of
>>>>>> Phragmites. We are in the process of developing long-term monitoring
>>>>>> plots in native Phragmites stands throughout Nature Conservancy holdings
>>>>>> in Door County, WI. The goals of this monitoring project will be to
>>>>>> assess the following questions:
>>>>>> 1. Under what conditions do native stands become aggressive?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. At what threshold is a native stand damaging to the community?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. What plants are commonly associated with native
>>>>>> Phragmites in the
>>>>>> Great Lakes region?
>>>>>> If you are interested, I can send you a more detailed
>>>>>> methodology for our
>>>>>> monitoring project, including what parameters we will be sampling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an additional note, I¹d encourage people to mention there is a native
>>>>>> variety of Phragmites and differentiate between the two strains in any
>>>>>> publications or documents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I look forward to your input!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>>> Katy Cummings
>>>>>> katy.e.cummings at gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe Franke
>>>>> Sapo Gordo Ecological Restoration Services
>>>>> Chile Dog Designs, Inc.
>>>>> 1228 Lafayette Dr. NE
>>>>> Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA
>>>>> ph: 505-515-8736 <tel:505-515-8736> <tel:505-515-8736
>>>>> <tel:505-515-8736> >
>>>>> Sapogordoeco at comcast.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
>>>>> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>>>>> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserv
>>>>> ation.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Disclaimer
>>>>> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
>>>>> opinion of the individual posting the message.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Joe Franke
>>> Sapo Gordo Ecological Restoration Services
>>> Chile Dog Designs, Inc.
>>> 1228 Lafayette Dr. NE
>>> Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA
>>> ph: 505-515-8736 <tel:505-515-8736>
>>> Sapogordoeco at comcast.net
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> Joe Franke
> Sapo Gordo Ecological Restoration Services
> Chile Dog Designs, Inc.
> 1228 Lafayette Dr. NE
> Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA
> ph: 505-515-8736
> Sapogordoeco at comcast.net
>
>
_______________________________________________
native-plants mailing list
native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org
Disclaimer
Posts on this list reflect only the opinion of the individual who is posting the message; they are not official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation Alliance.
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to native-plants-request at lists.plantconservation.org with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20120906/f67ef1a5/attachment.html>
More information about the native-plants
mailing list