Re: OT Extension of comment period/plant white list

>Cseggen1 wrote: 
>go to the following site & find your own senator and
>send them an email.
>http://www.senate.gov/
>I sent one to my senator, regarding another matter &
>believe it or not I got an answer back.
>Connie Eggen

Connie,
I sent a message by e-mail (form-mail) to my two
senators (following your link). Thanks for the
information.

In case anyone needs a little help getting their
thoughts together. I'll include the letter I've sent.
It's a digested version of ideas that I've gathered
from several sources.

Senator ********,
I am writing you to express my concern about white
list policy that is being considered. I do not
support this policy for the following reasons:

1.)  We already have adequate weed laws concerning
known invasive plants. Invasiveness is impossible to
predict except for these well-known agricultural
weeds. There is no proven method for determining the
potential invasiveness of a species. Most serious
invasives are not escapees from home gardens or casual
introductions.  They were once considered safe. They
were promoted and planted by the millions by state and
federal conservation agencies for erosion control and
game cover (Amur honeysuckle, multiflora rose,
oriental bittersweet, barberry, Japanese honeysuckle).
Its easy to see how even approved  introductions
can become problems. We need to keep in focus that the
great majority of introductions have been quite benign
and beneficial to agriculture, horticulture and
medicine.  

2.)  Agriculture is an important industry in our
state. Wild-collected relatives of crop plants are
vital to breeding programs for pest and disease
resistance. In addition, new plants are the lifeblood
of the nursery industry. One of the founding fathers
of our nation, Thomas Jefferson, said: "The greatest
service a man may do for his country is the
introduction of a useful plant. The exotics or
non-natives need not be considered guilty until proven
innocent. That is not our way of doing things in this
country.  Expensive and laborious pre-screening of all
imports will hamstring many areas of  U.S. scientific
research in agriculture.  It will increase our
dependence on foreign supplies of plant-based raw
materials and decrease our competitiveness in world
markets.

3.)  We  have a duty to seek and save plants
threatened with extinction in other parts of the
world. To require permits and inspections for ALL
seeds and plants, will effectively shut down many seed
exchanges like the North American Rock Garden Society
exchange and the Seed Saver's Exchange. These
grass-roots exchanges are crucial means of preserving
biodiversity. Proposed white list policy will place
an expensive hurdle in front of biodiversity
conservation efforts.



Yes, we all want to minimize movement of known pests.
We already have laws preventing this movement.
Occassional problems are far outweighed by all of the
good that comes with the already regulated
introduction of new plant materials. Like adverse
reactions from prescription drugs, or automobile
accidents, we have to accept these along with the good
that medicine and automobiles travel bring.

For these above-stated reasons, I am opposed to any
form of  'white list', 'clean list', 'gray list',
'pre-screening' or 'risk assessment' procedures. I
hope that you see the error in judgement, that
proponents of such policy are making. I look forward
to hearing what your position is on this proposed
legislation. 

Thank you for your time, Thomas E. Silvers
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index