[RWG] [APWG] [MPWG] Electronic Public Discussion: Evaluating the Invasive Potential of Imported Plants

Thu Jan 4 11:01:33 CST 2007

Melinda and others contributing to this message string:

I've been noticing a long string of messages here which are relevant to 
the Electronic Public Discussion referenced in the Subject box which APHIS 
has currently running, and which will be continued into February.  Please, 
if you wish APHIS to take notice, copy your previous messages into the 
attached discussion, and CC the electronic discussion with any follow-up 
postings.  I would do it myself, but they are your messages, and belong to 
you.  We at APHIS certainly would like to see this discussion in our 
Electronic Public Discussion record. 

The following is the discussion notice. 

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is hosting an electronic 
public discussion on methods that can be used to evaluate the potential of 
imported plants to become invasive species if they are introduced into the 
United States. Any interested person can participate in the electronic 
discussion, which will allow participants to upload files and interact 
with other participants and with APHIS staff. The electronic public 
discussion will be held from November 27, 2006 to January 26, 2007.

Please see the Federal Register Notice for details: 

On November 27, 2006 a link to the discussion will be posted on this 
website: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html

Please forward this notice to others you think may be interested.  Here is 
a list of people who have already received the message: 

Regards,

Alan V. Tasker, Ph.D. 
National Noxious Weed Program Manager

USDA  Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection & Quarantine
Emergency and Domestic Programs 
Invasive Species & Pest Management

       (301) 734-5708
Fax (301) 734-8584

"Melinda Mohrman" <MMohrman at chesterfield.mo.us>
Sent by: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
12/19/2006 06:02 PM

        To:     "Bob Beyfuss" <rlb14 at cornell.edu>, 
<Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov>, <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>, 
<mpwg at lists.plantconservation.org>, 
<native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org>, 
<rwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [APWG] [MPWG] Electronic Public Discussion: 
Evaluating      the     Invasive Potential of Imported Plants

When plants are transported to areas outside of their native habitat,
they are exposed to areas where they may not have any natural population
control.  If they reproduce more aggressively than the native species,
they are invasive.  Many exotic plants are not considered invasive
because they do not react this way to their new environments.  Banning
invasive plants is not a "knee jerk" reaction, this is something that
only happens after a plant has proven itself to be detrimental to its
new environment.  It is not bureaucrats who are making these decisions,
it is the plant science professionals who are urging them to take
action.  You mentioned groups which save native plants so that highways
can be installed and exotic plants used on the roadsides- one of the
reasons this legislation matters is because it does not allow exotic
plants to be used in these ways.  In an effort to correct past mistakes,
many states are enacting programs to establish native plants along
roadsides in order to stop the spread of these invasive plants.  I'm
dismayed at the thought that their might be people out there who are
fighting for invasive plants, when so many of us are fighting against
them.

>>> Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu> 12/19/2006 4:40 PM >>>
The concept of plants in themselves being capable of being "invasive"
is 
silly. It is attributing human qualities (implying malice in this case)
to 
unthinking organisms. Plants live, grow, reproduce (some are very
efficient 
at this) and die. New or different plants do not displace established 
existing plants in healthy, undisturbed  ecosystems. Plants do not
appear 
anywhere due to "spontaneous generation". They are brought in by humans
or 
animals. They may colonize or become naturalized in (neither colonize
nor 
naturalize  imply malice) areas less suited to so called "native"
species 
because human activity has allowed this to happen.

I am offended at the concept that "exotic" plants are somehow inferior
to 
"native" plants. Especially since 90% of my diet and that of most of us
is 
derived from"exotic" plants. Demonizing "exotic" plants as "invasive 
exotic" is inherently offensive .  Which term is less offensive to you

"Invasive exotic" or "opportunistic colonizer"? Now try to answer that

question if you happen to be from the Middle east (maybe Iraq), Asia or

Africa or Europe and you hear or read an American talking about
"invasive 
exotic species". I am sure the people in the middle east or anywhere
else 
in the world must enjoy reading about our efforts to "combat" (another

wonderful term)  "invasive, exotic species".

Personally I like the term "noxious weed" in which a weed is defined as
"an 
unwanted plant". By this definition a "volunteer" (i.e. unplanted) 
soybean 
plant growing in a corn field is a weed.  A "noxious weed" is a 
particularly undesirable weed. Why do we have to invent new terms that
are 
as offensive as "exotic invasive" or even worse "alien, invasive"?

What I find even more troubling is the knee jerk reaction to their 
presence. Lets just kill all the bad plants we don't like anymore and 
everything will be fine. First we gather all their names up and put
them on 
a list. Target these for extermination. Next we will make up more lists
of 
plants that "might" be "invasive" in the future and ban them too. Here
in 
NY State we already have county executives issuing "executive decrees"

banning the use of any but "native" species in any future plantings on

county property. How dare they do this? Yet, this is a logical
extension of 
the current polices we are formulating. Why should we be denied
daffodils, 
daylillies, tulips or apple trees or Kentucky bluegrass (another exotic

import) because someone has decided that they are evil?

In the long run, and I must emphasize looking at the long run or the
big 
picture, every single environment on this planet will ultimately
determine 
what plant and animal species survives there, not some bureaucrat in 
Washington with a pen making up lists of good versus bad plants based
on 
his or her opinion. This process is called natural selection and it is

constant. Black locust is OK in PA because it is "native" but bad in NY

because it is exotic? This is crazy. The same species of Magnolias
growing 
in China are identical to some of those growing here. At one time there
was 
one continent so what exactly is "native" and why are "native" plants 
superior to Non native? Are "native people, i.e. blue blooded Americans

inherently superior to immigrants because they were born here? How long

must one be here to be considered a "native"?

Global warming will have a far more profound effect on plant species
and 
their distribution than some group of people spraying herbicides on
plants 
they don't like.

An interesting research project along that line might be to study
exactly 
how plants are distributed and become established within any given 
community.  While highly paid administrators are forming invasive plant

councils, attending countless meetings and making regulations, the
local 
highway department employee (@ $10 per hour) is transplanting garlic 
mustard and Japanese knotweed every time they move the Grade-all
machine 
from one place to another. The people picking up garbage along the
highway 
are also picking up weed seeds and moving them down the road. All the 
campers, mountain bikers, hikers, 4 wheelers, skiers, and other outdoor

recreationist constantly introduce exotic stuff into the environment. 
Should we pass regulations banning these activities? No, it is much
easier 
to blame the plants for the problems and spray them with herbicides. Or
is it?

I recently spoke with the local Executive Director of the Nature 
Conservancy for the Catskill Mountain region and he estimated that he
could 
easily spend 90% or more of their total annual operating budget trying
to 
eradicate only garlic mustard and only from roadsides in this region
and 
the net result would be that it would be required to do this every year

indefinitely with no chance of eradication at all. Is this a good use
of 
our limited resources? Good organizations like Ohio's Rural Action
Network 
are forced to rescue plants from proposed new highways which soon will
have 
their shoulders colonized by "exotic, invasive plants". So, should we
ban 
the building of new highways or prohibit logging or timber harvest
because 
of the inevitable consequences? Maybe we should ban all imports of all

exotic plants or better yet prohibit cultivation of all but native
plants! 
Or do we proceed as carefully as possible with these projects and
realize 
that there will surely be unwanted consequences as a result?.

Most of the plants now considered as evil, invasive exotic species were

introduced for some very good reasons and many of them are still great

choices for many situations. If not for Norway maple there would be no

street trees in some stressed locations. Like the soybean plant in the

cornfield, one situation's weed is another situations wildflower. 
Black 
locust is a wonderful alternative to CCA pressure treated wood, many,
many 
species of songbirds feast on the berries of the exotic honeysuckles, 
Autumn and Russian olive, bittersweet, barberry, multiflora rose, and
on 
and on.

I don't like the idea of banning books, banning plants or banning
anything 
because it is politically correct. All this talk about "combating
invasive 
exotics"  and the connotations of this language makes me very nervous.
We 
are already engaged in far too many wars for our own good and for the
good 
of our planet.

Thanks for reading.
Bob Beyfuss

At 11:20 AM 12/13/2006, Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov wrote:

>Excuse the cross-postings but it looks like there is something in this
for 
>everyone!
>
>This discussion is already underway!  A summary of the purpose and how
you 
>can participate is below.  To see the full notice, see: 
>http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-18768.htm

>
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - 
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health
>Inspection Service (APHIS) is hosting an electronic public discussion
>on methods that can be used to evaluate the potential of imported
>plants to become invasive species if they are introduced into the
>United States. Any interested person can register for the electronic
>discussion, which will allow participants to upload files and
interact
>with other participants and with APHIS staff.
>
>DATES: The electronic public discussion will be held from November
27,
>2006 to January 26, 2007.
>
>FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Polly Lehtonen, Senior Staff
>Officer, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
>River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8758.
>
>QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: We would like participants in the
>electronic discussion to specifically address the following six
questions,
>although general comments on the issue of evaluating invasiveness
will
>be accepted as well.
>    1. What criteria, other than whether the plant has a history of
>invasiveness elsewhere, are most useful to determine the invasiveness
>of a plant introduced into the United States for the first time?
>    2. When there is little or no existing scientific literature or
>other information describing the invasiveness of a plant species, how
>much should we extrapolate from information on congeners (other
species
>within the same genus)?
>    3. What specific scientific experiments should be conducted to
best
>evaluate a plant's invasive potential? Should these experiments be
>conducted in a foreign area, in the United States, or both?
>    4. How should the results of such experiments be interpreted?
>Specifically, what results should be interpreted as providing
>conclusive information for a regulatory decision?
>    5. If field trials are necessary to determine the invasive
>potential of a plant, under what conditions should the research be
>conducted to prevent the escape of the plant into the environment?
>    6. What models or techniques are being used by the nursery
>industry, weed scientists, seed companies, botanical gardens, and
>others to screen plants that have not yet been widely introduced into
>the United States for invasiveness? What species have been rejected
by
>these evaluators as a result of the use of these evaluation methods?
>
>ACCESSING THE ELECTRONIC DISCUSSION:
>    While anyone can access the discussion and read the comments,
>registration is required in order to participate in the discussion.
You
>will be asked to register at the time you post your comment. 
Participants
>will be required to enter their name and e-mail address. Affiliation
and
>mailing address are optional. Only the participant names will be
publicly 
>displayed.
>
>The discussion will be accessible through a link on Plant Protection
and
>Quarantine's Web page for the nursery stock revision, 
><
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html
>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.

***************************************************************
This email should be considered "unofficial communication"
and does not necessarily reflect the official position of
the City of Chesterfield. An "official position" of the
City shall only be communicated in letter form, using
City letterhead.
***************************************************************

_______________________________________________
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20070104/254e2031/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pdf notice.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 55871 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20070104/254e2031/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: email list for notice.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 53248 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20070104/254e2031/attachment-0001.obj>