<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Steve,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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 <FONT
size=2>just </FONT>being frosty.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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". </FONT><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><BR>Dan Segal</DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>