Re: "Time for the return of the native"
- Subject: Re: [SG] "Time for the return of the native"
- From: P* H*
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 01:22:44 EST
There are a number of assumptions that are made that I cannot agree with
here:
1) That there is such a thing as "native" all plants and animal populations
are in a state of flux and move around and change. And to claim that
something is native or not is an artificial distinction.
2) that none "native " plants cause harm to the environment this is a
debatable premise, the environment is changing all the time and the
introduction of new plants poses a limited problem for lost habitat the
greatest problems occur from habitat destruction from road, home and
agriculture and the suppression of fire. The only time a problem occurs
with the introduction of a new species is when the niche a plant or animal
lives in is very fragmented.
3) That the use of a ban will limit the spread of exotics-those plants that
are listed as problems as noxious weeds are not for the most part ornamentals
but have moved around as agricultural weeds in grain shipments or have come
to this country as tag allongs in ships and other forms of shipping goods.
Here are a few quotes that I do not agree with:
"It is a
proven fact that plants like Amur Maple, Burning Bush, Vinca minor, Euonymus
fortunei, Amur and Tatarian Honeysuckle, European Bittersweet, and and even
some forms of Butterfly Bush have escaped to the wild, causing a lot of
problems for the environment."
where is this proven? The only way this can be a true statement is if you
believe that any indication that a plant is not native then it "is
destructive". What has been destroyed? Again this assumes that the world is
a static place-which is incorrect and that there is something innately good
about native plants in an already altered landscape.
All the examples that she lists above have escaped into disturbed localities
were we have already altered the populations of plants and animals-they
happen to be well adapted to moving into those types of environments that are
species poor already.
. "Norway Maple displaces native
Sugar Maples and is not a good choice"
Why? There are still plenty of sugar maples in those locations, now the
environment is richer because it is not dominated by just one species but has
a mix of species, so in realty it is healthier again its just an aesthetic
problem that she is dealing with.
"We are messing up our
environment without a doubt"
I doubt it strongly, when it comes to gardening. I have heard the arguments
but have not seen and proof.
Lets see the evidence?
The policy of suppressing fires has done a thousand fold more damage to the
environment than all the exotic ornamental plants ever has in this country,
also the increase in the white tail deer population has done more harm than
all the exotics she has listed.
