Re: "Time for the return of the native"
- Subject: Re: [SG] "Time for the return of the native"
- From: M* T*
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:13:28 -0500
Well, Bobbi, your friend Carolyn makes some valid points (deleted
both your posts so this would comply with word limitations for this
list as I tend to be wordy).
However, for the handful of escaped garden plants that she has listed
(which BTW create problems in only portions of this country), there
are literally thousands of species and cultivars - some yet to be
discovered - that are never going to become invasive in any situation
AND which could easily be banned because of many reasons should the
proposed 'weediness assessment' and 'clean' list go into force.
While I admire, enjoy and even love many native plants, primarily I
love plants...that is all plants that have a quality that I consider
worthwhile. I think it is extraordinarily short-sighted to imagine
that placing limits on which plants can be legally grown will have
the least effect in curbing those already known to be invading
certain areas, whether they are native or exotic.
The point is that we now have sufficient regulations and means at
hand to deal with known and listed noxious weeds. We are not talking
about "invasive" plants per se, but noxious weeds. Noxious weeds are
clearly defined and different from simply aggressive plants who
spread in certain areas. The .pdf file I posted lists these weeds in
the appendix. None are garden worthy plants. None are a result of
ornamental horticulture as far as I am aware.
The primary cause of an area being invaded by any one species of
plant is the fact that the area has already been disturbed by human
activity of some kind. Human disturbance of our ecosystems creates
the void which 'exotic' plants - or any aggressive plant suitable to
the area - fill. The Draft Action Plan does not deal in any way with
this primary cause.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, those who have learned to love native
species and have seen the very real situations in which they have
become threatened because of disturbed ecosystems, have decided that
the solution is to remove all 'exotic' species. This is not actually
practical, even if it were really desirable. As was pointed out on
another list, all the lawn grasses in yards, playing fields and parks
would have to be removed under those circumstances; not to mention
all the marigolds, nasturtiums and zinnias grown in people's gardens.
What is at issue here is not the pros and cons about this or that
native or exotic plant. These can and will be debated forever...like
politics and religion.
What is at stake here is the continuance of ornamental
horticulture...gardening...as we now know it. It is not merely our
rights as gardeners, but at stake is the healthy gene pool that
encourages biodiversity and the livelihoods of countless small and
large growers who provide us with the plants for our gardens. There
are hundreds of individuals all over the world deeply engaged in
identifying new species and determining their garden-worthiness. The
free exchange of material among these people and botanical gardens
and herbariums must be encouraged; not stopped.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of species of plants that are
unknown to science in this world. Some may be of horticultural
interest. Some may prove important to medicine or science in some
now unknown way. If their discovery and dissemination is stopped
because of unreasonably restrictive regulations, not only gardeners
but humankind will be the losers.
Unknown plants, of course, would not be on any 'clean' list. If one
stops to think about how our government agencies operate, how many
centuries would it be before something new to science made it through
an 'assessment' process controlled by a government agency?
Currently, USDA/APHIS does not have enough trained personnel to
properly deal with the importing and exporting of plants - something
that is a well-established process that occurs every day at major
points of exit and entry to this country. They will never, given
government funding priorities, have adequate properly trained
personnel to begin to deal with assessing thousands of species of
plants. In reality, if a plant is NOT on a 'clean' list to begin
with, its chances of getting on the list are slender and none. As I
pointed out, some 40% of the plants we now grow in our gardens could
end up banned were a 'clean list' requirement to be implemented.
Again, this has nothing to do with the native/exotic plant issue; the
Draft Action Plan deals with noxious weeds.
Carolyn said: "We are messing up our environment without a doubt and
part of the reason is because of our insistence on being able to do
"whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want, and by darn,
no one--but NO ONE is going to tell me what to plant in MY yard." "
IMO, she is missing the point entirely. What people plant in their
gardens has extraordinarily little to do with the issue of invasive
species and virtually nothing to do with the issue of noxious weeds.
We, as humans, are certainly messing up the environment, but not by
what we plant in our gardens nor by having the right to legally buy,
sell, give and exchange seeds and plants interstate or
internationally without unduly restrictive regulations on our
activity.
We are all gardeners. At this point, our interests are not being
represented by those "advising" USDA. USDA is not even considering
our interests nor our points of view, whatever they may be. This is
why we need to bring our views to their attention while we have a
chance. The last day for public comment is this coming Friday, March
29, 2002. This is insufficient time for public comment on these
important issues. These are issues that require substantial debate
and have not been brought before the public so that this debate can
occur.
If nothing else, all of us need to tell USDA that we, the gardening
public, need more time to understand the issues and participate in
the "public" comments on the issues before any Draft plan is
accepted. Since USDA is not an agency given to paying any attention
to the public, we must go to our legislators - for whom we vote and
who have an interest in obtaining our votes - and get them to speak
for us; they control USDA purse strings and thus get their attention.
Time is so short to get this to happen. It only has a chance if we
all get busy and write and/or call our senators and congresspeople
about it NOW. If you happen to live in a state with a legislator on
either the House or Senate Agriculture Committee, contacting them is
vitally important. Legislators only pay attention to the voters in
their own districts; they do not even read letters from other people.
Once the 29th has passed, it will be too late to have any influence
on the outcome at all. Once a regulation has been adopted, it is
virtually impossible to get it removed from the law books. There are
jurisdictions in this country who still have laws on the books
banning indoor toilets, you know.
Marge Talt, zone 7 Maryland
mtalt@hort.net
Editor: Gardening in Shade
-----------------------------------------------
Current Article: Online Nurseries 2002 - Garden Vision
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/shade_gardening
------------------------------------------------
Complete Index of Articles by Category and Date
http://mtalt.hort.net/article-index.html
------------------------------------------------
All Suite101.com garden topics :
http://www.suite101.com/topics.cfm/635
----------
> From: Bobbi Diehl <diehlr@INDIANA.EDU>
>
> My friend Carolyn Harstad, who is admittedly a lover of native
plants (she
> wrote the book GO NATIVE! on gardening with native plants in the
Midwest),
> posted this to me in response to Marge's thoughtful essay. I guess
I am
> somewhere in between, but I am with her when she writes "we are
messing up
> our environment without a doubt, and part of the reason is that 'by
darn,
> no one is going to tell me what to do with my yard' attitude" (I am
> paraphrasing; for the exact quote see below). She agreed that I
could
> share her reply with the list in hopes of generating more
discussion.
> Admittedly, most exotics are probably harmless. It's a question of
the
> enormous harm done by a tiny minority.
>
> Bobbi Diehl
> Bloomington, IN
> zone 5/6
